Cicero: named laws, plebiscites and edicts

A curated identification of instruments directly relevant to the legal issues, procedural setting, or explicit legal comparisons in the 33 atlas text units. It is not a concordance of every lex-name in all of Cicero, nor a reconstruction of the complete Roman statute book.

Lex is an enactment or operative rule, not necessarily a modern code. Many conventionally titled leges were plebiscita proposed by tribunes. Edicts, individual interdicts and provincial settlements have different sources of authority.

A link identifies the role of a rule in an argument. It does not establish guilt, validity of an alleged act, or agreement among modern historians. Governing charge, entitlement, remedy, analogy and earlier proceeding remain separate.

Coverage: 50 instrument records; 91 text–instrument links; 62 source-focus units; all 33 atlas text units reviewed, including explicit limits.

Open interactive law register

Text-by-text identification

Annotated register

1. Praetorian edict invoked under P. Burrienus

布里恩努斯所援用的裁判官告示

Type: edict · Date: Operative before the hearing of 81 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The edict states conditions for putting a person’s property into another’s possession. Cicero contests whether Quinctius meets any relevant condition, including concealment to defraud and failure of defence in absence.

The immediate sponsio tests whether the property was possessed for thirty days under the edict. Dolabella’s direction to make the sponsio is a case-specific procedural order, not a separate statute.

Limit: A debt claim, a praetorian grant of possession, and lawful possession under the edict are not interchangeable. The source has a lacuna in §60; it is preserved in the expanded text.

Text relationships:

• Pro Quinctio — Governing remedy. The edict supplies the legal conditions tested by the sponsio, rather than deciding the alleged debt directly.

Attested use: before 81 BCE. Creation/first promulgation not independently dated.

Effect / use: Applied before the hearing of 81 BCE. The register does not establish the edict’s first promulgation or a continuous effective term.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Quinctio: Speech — 81 BCE; Governing remedy.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

须分别考察告示规定、财产占有是否合规，以及多拉贝拉命令订立的诉讼赌约；不能由占有主张直接推出债务成立。

Existence & identification. Quinctio 30 expressly names the edict of P. Burrienus inside the condition of the sponsio; §60 reports the edictal ground concerning an absent person not defended as required. These attest a rule invoked in a real dispute, through the defendant’s advocate.

Dating argument. The secure bound is application before the hearing of 81 BCE. The narrated possession and later order are successive events, not dates of first promulgation. Neither passage supplies a consular year for creation of this clause.

Legal & procedural operation. Naevius seeks security on the footing that goods have been possessed under the edict for thirty days. Cicero contests whether possession satisfied the edict at all. Default, adequate representation, possession and eventual sale must therefore be examined separately; the underlying partnership debt is not itself decided by this preliminary question.

Text & documentary survival. No independent edict tablet is identified in this dossier. The operative condition survives inside Cicero’s account of Dolabella’s procedural order; §60 supplies another part of the edictal framework.

Disputes & limits. Greenidge reconstructs the sequence from an advocate’s incomplete narrative. It does not license treating Naevius’ claim to possess as a proved lawful execution. Compare the separate Dolabella record for the individual order.

Critical reading:

• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 255-258
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541

Pro P. Quinctio §30 — Cicero: archived Latin

si bona sua ex edicto P. Burrieni praetoris dies xxx possessa non essent.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 如果他的财产并未依裁判官普布利乌斯·布里恩努斯的告示被占有三十日。

Pro P. Quinctio §60 — Cicero: archived Latin

qui fraudationis causa latitarit.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 因实施欺诈而隐匿的人。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 255–258, 531–541 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

2. Lucullus’ edict on damage by armed or assembled households

卢库卢斯关于武装或集结奴仆致损的告示

Type: edict · Date: Introduced in 76 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The formula quoted in Pro Tullio concerns damage maliciously done by a household using armed or assembled men; the remedy is fourfold. Cicero explains Lucullus’ response to organized violence after civil war.

Recuperatores assess liability and value. Cicero argues that omission of iniuria from this formulation excludes a defence that would be available under ordinary Aquilian damage law.

Limit: That construction is the advocate’s argument. Do not equate a fourfold civil remedy with a prosecution under the lex Plautia de vi, or silently replace this wording with a later juristic formula.

Text relationships:

• Pro Tullio — Governing remedy. The quoted formula and its intended reach are the immediate legal issue.

Introduced: 76 BCE. Conventional introduction date in the register.

Effect / use: The remedy is applied in Pro Tullio, usually dated 72 or 71 BCE; introduction in 76 BCE is a separate event.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Tullio: Speech — 72 or 71 BCE; Governing remedy.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

卢库卢斯的告示提供加重的私人损害救济；告示创设年代与《为图利乌斯辩护》的审理年代是两个事件。

Existence & identification. Tullio 7–12 names M. Lucullus and explains his response to violent acts by armed or assembled slave households. The speech reports the formula’s terms and the reason for a more severe remedy than ordinary wrongful-damage litigation.

Dating argument. 76 BCE is the conventional date of Lucullus’ praetorship and introduction of the remedy; the later Tullius hearing, conventionally 72 or 71, proves subsequent application. The speech’s retrospective narrative does not give an exact day of issue.

Legal & procedural operation. The action makes damage inflicted with malicious intent by an armed or assembled household the decisive question and seeks a fourfold assessment. Cicero uses the special wording to narrow permissible defences. This is a private penal remedy; it is not the later public prosecution under the Plautian or Pompeian violence laws.

Text & documentary survival. The edict is reconstructed from forensic quotations and commentary, not a surviving posted original. Preserve the wording quoted in the speech instead of presenting an expanded modern edict reconstruction as authentic text.

Disputes & limits. The relation to the Aquilian action and later robbery remedies requires historical reconstruction. A shared concern with violence is not identity of action, formula or penalty.

Critical reading:

• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 206-210
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 551-556

Pro M. Tullio §7 — Cicero: archived Latin

iudicium datum est in quadruplum.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 所授予的诉讼救济为四倍赔偿。

Pro M. Tullio §12 — Cicero: archived Latin

neque illud adderet inivria

中文（仅译所引句段）： 而没有添入“违法地”这个词

Greenidge (1901): pp. 206–210, 551–556 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

3. Interdict de vi hominibus armatis

关于武装暴力驱逐的禁令

Type: interdict · Date: Republican praetorian remedy; applied in Caecina’s case

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The praetor orders restoration after armed dispossession. The controversy turns on whether intimidation preventing entry falls within the language of being driven out.

A sponsio follows the defendant’s assertion that he has restored possession; the recuperatores decide that procedural issue. The proceeding is possessory, not a final determination of ownership.

Limit: An interdict is a magistrate’s order within praetorian jurisdiction. It is not itself a lex passed by an assembly. Cicero contrasts its unqualified wording with other possessory situations.

Text relationships:

• Pro Caecina — Governing remedy. The wording and legal effect of the interdict frame the civil action.

Origin: Republican; exact date unknown. Origin of the remedy is not dated by the application in Caecina.

Effect / use: Applied before the Caecina hearing, usually dated 69 BCE (disputed). That application does not date the creation of the remedy.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Caecina: Speech — usually 69 BCE?; Governing remedy.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

武装驱逐禁令的适用争议集中于阻止进入是否也构成驱逐；占有救济并不等于所有权判决。

Existence & identification. Caecina 23 reports the command associated with armed expulsion; §§31–35 make its wording the object of argument. This is direct evidence for the interdict used in the dispute, mediated by Cicero’s defence.

Dating argument. The remedy existed before the Caecina hearing, usually placed around 69 BCE. That hearing cannot establish the first creation of the general interdict; the particular order was issued earlier in this dispute.

Legal & procedural operation. The central dispute concerns whether preventing entry by armed force counts as the expulsion contemplated by the command. Cicero argues that a narrowly literal reading would reward intimidation. Restoration of possession and the wager enforcing the order must be distinguished from an adjudication of ownership.

Text & documentary survival. The dossier preserves a Ciceronian witness to an interdict, not an independently surviving praetorian album. The later juristic taxonomy is useful comparison but cannot silently replace the Republican wording.

Disputes & limits. The breadth of the remedy, the role of previous possession and the procedural reconstruction are contested. Cicero’s purposive argument is a litigant’s interpretation, not a neutral judicial holding.

Critical reading:

• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 210-227
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 556-568

Pro A. Caecina §23 — Cicero: archived Latin

P. Dolabella praetor interdixit, ut est consuetudo, de vi hominibvs ar matis sine ulla exceptione, tantum ut unde deiecisset restitueret.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 裁判官普布利乌斯·多拉贝拉依惯例就武装人员施暴颁发禁令，不附任何抗辩例外，只要求将被驱逐者恢复到原处。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 210–227, 556–568 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

4. Lex Aquilia de damno

阿奎利乌斯损害法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: Third century BCE; precise date disputed

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The Aquilian regime supplies the ordinary action for wrongful damage, including killing another’s slave. Tullio explicitly contrasts this law with Lucullus’ more severe remedy.

In Roscio Comoedo, Panurgus’ killing generated an earlier damages action and settlement; the present dispute concerns the partners’ financial relationship and the scope of that settlement.

Limit: Roscio Comoedo §32 describes damnum iniuria but does not name the lex Aquilia. Identification of that earlier action as Aquilian is Greenidge’s reconstruction. Do not call the present action simply an Aquilian trial.

Text relationships:

• Pro Tullio — Explicit comparison. Ordinary damage law is contrasted with the operative Lucullan formula.
• Pro Roscio Comoedo — Underlying transaction. Aquilian identification concerns the antecedent killing action, not the current financial action.

Enactment: 3rd century BCE; disputed. Precise date disputed.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Tullio: Speech — 72 or 71 BCE; Explicit comparison.
• Pro Roscio Comoedo: Speech — later 70s BCE?; Underlying transaction.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

《阿奎利亚法》的平民决议性质有法学家明文说明；精确颁布年与原始条文均须保留争议，后世解释不能冒充原文。

Existence & identification. Tullio 9 explicitly names the Aquilian law. Ulpian, Digest 9.2.1.1, expressly identifies it as a plebiscite proposed by the tribune Aquilius. Gaius 3.210 and 3.215–218 distinguishes its chapters.

Dating argument. Do not turn the often repeated 287/286 BCE date into a certainty. Rotondi records competing chronologies and the problematic dependence on Theophilus; Crawford argues for an early third-century setting but separates this inference from the surviving juristic testimony.

Legal & procedural operation. Chapter one concerns killing another’s slave or herd animal and a valuation over the previous year; chapter three concerns other damaging acts and a thirty-day valuation. Chapter two concerns fraudulent release by an adstipulator. Juristic interpretation and extensions of liability are part of its history, not automatically its original enactment.

Text & documentary survival. No original inscribed text is used here. Digest 9.2 quotes and interprets clauses centuries later. Crawford’s reconstructed text, including disputed wording and tense, is explicitly conjectural; it must not be displayed as a verbatim ancient tablet.

Disputes & limits. In Roscio Comoedo, the Panurgus transaction is reconstructed as Aquilian litigation; this is different from Cicero expressly naming the law there. The edict in Tullio offers a distinct penal action.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 241-242
• M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723-725
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 543-544

Pro M. Tullio §9 — Cicero: archived Latin

cum sciret de damno legem esse Aquiliam

中文（仅译所引句段）： 虽然他知道关于损害已有阿奎利乌斯法

Pro Q. Roscio Comoedo §32 — Cicero: archived Latin

lite contestata, iudicio damni iniuria constituto tu sine me cum Flavio decidisti.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在争讼已经确定、违法致损的审判已经设立以后，你却未同我商议便与弗拉维乌斯和解。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 543–544, 553–554 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

5. Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis

科尔内利乌斯刺杀与毒杀法

Type: lex · Date: 81 BCE; Sullan legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The statute establishes the poisoning/murder inquiry and includes a clause against procuring wrongful public condemnation. In Cluentio, Cicero parses both conduct and the classes of persons covered.

The defence separates the poisoning charge from the prejudicial history of the Oppianicus trial, arguing that the judicial-conspiracy clause does not reach Cluentius as an eques.

Limit: The personal-scope argument is Cicero’s contested statutory construction, not a blanket immunity from poisoning liability. The Roscius Amerinus attribution is the conventional identification of the Sullan murder-court framework; the later lex Pompeia de parricidiis must not be projected back into 80 BCE.

Text relationships:

• Pro Cluentio — Governing charge. Express statutory exegesis: Cluentio §§148–154 distinguishes clauses and personal scope.
• Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino — Reconstructed framework. Conventional identification of the murder court; Roscius’ case predates Pompey’s later parricide statute.

Enacted: 81 BCE. Conventional Sullan dating.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Cluentio: Speech — 66 BCE; Governing charge.
• Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino: Speech — 80 BCE; Reconstructed framework.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

必须区分毒杀条款与枉致死罪的条款；特定条款的身份限制不能变成骑士普遍不负杀人责任。

Existence & identification. Cluentio 148–154 quotes and analyses portions of the Cornelian criminal statute. These are exceptionally important contemporary witnesses because the defence turns on which persons and conduct the clauses reach.

Dating argument. 81 BCE is the conventional date within Sulla’s criminal-law settlement. The Cluentius speech of 66 attests later use, not enactment. Roscius’ trial in 80 belongs to the reconstructed early Sullan court framework.

Legal & procedural operation. Separate poisoning liability from the clause about procuring an unjust capital condemnation. Cicero’s argument about senatorial status addresses the scope of a particular clause, not a general immunity of equestrians from murder law. Later Digest 48.8 and Collatio testimony describes a much developed body of law.

Text & documentary survival. Contemporary forensic quotation is supplemented by imperial jurists; no complete Republican statute survives in this dossier. Later rules on punishment and newly assimilated offences must be dated to their own witnesses.

Disputes & limits. Do not assign the later Pompeian parricide statute to Roscius’ trial. Nor does an advocate’s exclusionary reading establish that the court accepted every part of it.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 357-358
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424

Pro A. Cluentio §148 — Cicero: archived Latin

quaerere de veneno.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 审理有关毒物的案件。

Pro A. Cluentio §154 — Cicero: archived Latin

quae tunc erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia

中文（仅译所引句段）： 当时是森普罗尼乌斯法，如今是科尔内利乌斯法

Greenidge (1901): pp. 423–424 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

6. Proscription law: “Valeria or Cornelia”

公敌宣告法：瓦莱里乌斯法或科尔内利乌斯法

Type: uncertain · Date: Sullan settlement, 82–81 BCE

Identification: Identification explicitly uncertain in Cicero

Cicero asks whether the sale of the elder Roscius’ estate could be lawful even under the proscription legislation itself. He invokes categories of eligible victims and a statutory time limit.

The estate sale supplies motive and an attack on Chrysogonus’ position within the murder defence. It is not the statute defining the murder charge.

Limit: Cicero expressly declines to identify the enactment: sive Valeria est sive Cornelia. Preserve that alternative; neither a modern family-name label nor a confident attribution removes the source’s ambiguity.

Text relationships:

• Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino — Contested legality. The legality of the property sale is attacked on the law’s own terms, separately from the charge of killing.

Sullan settlement: 82–81 BCE; identity uncertain. Alternative statutory identification retained.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino: Speech — 80 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

西塞罗本人明确保留“瓦莱里亚或科尔内利亚”的疑问；应把授权独裁、公布名单与财产没收的规范层次分别呈现。

Existence & identification. Roscio Amerino 125 names alternatives, “Valerian or Cornelian,” and expressly says the speaker does not know which. The following argument addresses the categories whose property could be sold; §128 invokes a June deadline.

Dating argument. The relevant setting is the Sullan settlement of 82–81 BCE. The June limit reported in the speech belongs to the operation of the proscription arrangements, not necessarily the date of their enactment.

Legal & procedural operation. Cicero contests whether the elder Roscius falls within the authorized category of confiscation and whether the sale was timely. These are objections to title and administrative action used within a murder defence; the speech does not become an independent action to annul the whole Sullan settlement.

Text & documentary survival. The strongest witness includes uncertainty in its own wording. Appian and Plutarch provide historical accounts of the dictatorship and proscriptions, but cannot erase the uncertainty in Cicero’s statutory identification.

Disputes & limits. Rotondi distinguishes the Valerian authorization of the dictatorship from Cornelian proscription arrangements and discusses whether the latter derived force from the former. This is an interpretive model, not a recovered complete statute.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 348-349
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 80-81

Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino §125 — Cicero: archived Latin

sive Valeria est sive Cornelia — non enim novi nec scio

中文（仅译所引句段）： 无论它是瓦莱里乌斯法还是科尔内利乌斯法；因为我既不熟悉，也不知道

Greenidge (1901): pp. 80–81 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

7. Lex Cornelia de repetundis

科尔内利乌斯行省勒索法

Type: lex · Date: 81 BCE; before the Julian replacement of 59

Identification: Court framework reconstructed; predecessor explicitly named

The Sullan extortion statute forms the legal framework of the prosecution of Verres and, in the conventional reconstruction, Fonteius. The surviving Verrine texts address official extraction, judicial abuse and the trial’s structure.

Divinatio selects the prosecutor within that prosecution; it does not decide Verres’ guilt. Rabirio Postumo later identifies the Cornelian statute as a predecessor carrying the recipient-recovery clause.

Limit: The six Verrine trial text units belong to one prosecution; the five books of the second action were published rather than delivered. Rabirio Postumo is governed by the later Julian statute, not this predecessor.

Text relationships:

• Divinatio in Caecilium — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• In Verrem, Actio prima — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• In Verrem II.4: Works of art and sacred property — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• Pro Fonteio — Reconstructed framework. The pre-Julian public extortion proceeding; the cited later passage explicitly distinguishes its statutory predecessor.
• Pro Rabirio Postumo — Statutory predecessor. Cicero compares the recipient clause in the Julian, Cornelian and Servilian enactments.

Enacted: 81 BCE. Conventional Sullan dating.

Effect / use: The reconstructed operative regime for Verres in 70 BCE and Fonteius, usually 69 BCE; the register identifies the Julian replacement in 59 BCE.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Divinatio in Caecilium: Speech — 70 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• In Verrem, Actio prima: Speech — 70 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career: Published text — 70 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration: Published text — 70 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation: Published text — 70 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• In Verrem II.4: Works of art and sacred property: Published text — 70 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments: Published text — 70 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• Pro Fonteio: Speech — usually 69 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• Pro Rabirio Postumo: Speech — 54 BCE; Statutory predecessor.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

《为拉比里乌斯·波斯图穆斯辩护》证明追及所得条款的承继关系；一个条款沿用不等于整部法律内容相同。

Existence & identification. Rabirio Postumo 9 explicitly says that the recipient-recovery clause passed from the Servilian into the Cornelian and then the Julian law. The statute’s existence is thus stronger evidence than any reconstruction of its complete contents.

Dating argument. The conventional Sullan date is 81 BCE, but Rotondi marks that dating with a question. Its place between Servilian and Julian legislation is independently supported by Cicero’s sequence; a full enactment date is not.

Legal & procedural operation. The relevant provision reaches money that passed to someone other than the convicted official. Greenidge places Verres’ and Fonteius’ trials within the Cornelian regime. Their institutional setting and the preserved recipient clause are different kinds of evidence.

Text & documentary survival. Only fragments and references transmitted through literature are available here. The three-stage sequence in Rabirio Postumo does not show that every procedural or penal provision remained identical.

Disputes & limits. Avoid importing the whole of Julian or imperial repetundae law into the Sullan statute. Explicit continuity of one chapter is narrower than continuity of an entire code.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504

Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9 — Cicero: archived Latin

non modo in Cornelia sed etiam ante in lege Servilia

中文（仅译所引句段）： 不仅在科尔内利乌斯法中，而且更早在塞尔维利乌斯法中也有

Greenidge (1901): pp. 415–428, 493–496 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

8. Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis

尤利乌斯行省勒索法

Type: lex · Date: 59 BCE; Caesar’s consular legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The Julian statute governs extortion and associated recovery. Rabirio Postumo quotes its instruction to pursue money into the hands of recipients after the original defendant has been condemned.

The derivative quo ea pecunia pervenerit proceeding raises whether, and how, an equestrian recipient may be reached. Greenidge also identifies Flacco’s “recent and new law” limiting investigative companions as this statute; Scaurus’ trial belongs to its period.

Limit: Flacco §13 does not supply the law’s name: the identification is attributed to Greenidge, not presented as an explicit quotation. Rabirius’ claim about equestrian status is the defence’s construction of the interaction between clauses.

Text relationships:

• Pro Rabirio Postumo — Governing remedy. The law and recipient-recovery clause are explicitly identified in §§8–12.
• Pro Flacco — Reconstructed framework. The unnamed recent law in §13 is identified as Julian by Greenidge, p. 485 n. 3.
• Pro Scauro — Reconstructed framework. The extortion charge in 54 BCE falls under the post-59 regime; the surviving fragments do not themselves preserve a full charging instrument.

Enacted: 59 BCE. Consular legislation.

Effect / use: The post-59 BCE extortion regime; the Flacco identification is qualified, while Rabirio Postumo (54 BCE) expressly names the Julian recipient-recovery clause. No terminal date is assigned here.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Rabirio Postumo: Speech — 54 BCE; Governing remedy.
• Pro Flacco: Speech — 59 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• Pro Scauro: Speech — 54 BCE; Reconstructed framework.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

恺撒的朱利亚勒索法与追及受领人的程序相关；应分别证明主案、款项流向和受领人的责任。

Existence & identification. Rabirio Postumo 8–12 names the Julian law and quotes the words governing money that reached another recipient. Cicero’s contemporary correspondence and later Digest 48.11 provide further witnesses to the broad anti-extortion regime.

Dating argument. 59 BCE is Caesar’s consular enactment year. The Flaccus defence later that year calls a law recent and new without naming it at §13; its identification as Julian is Greenidge’s interpretation. Rabirio Postumo in 54 gives explicit naming.

Legal & procedural operation. The recipient proceeding depends on the prior official extortion case and assessment, but the defence disputes both the reach of the clause and what Postumus received. The law also belongs to the regulation of provincial office and gifts; those wider provisions need their own loci.

Text & documentary survival. This is a statute reconstructed from multiple literary and juristic witnesses, not a surviving complete bronze. Late imperial texts under its title may preserve extensions and altered penalties.

Disputes & limits. Do not equate every payment in a governor’s orbit with proved extortion, or every recipient with a principal defendant. Distinguish the quoted chapter from the advocate’s account of Gabinius’ conviction.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 389-391
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 485
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 501-504

Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §8 — Cicero: archived Latin

iubet lex Iulia persequi ab eis ad quos ea pecunia quam is ceperit qui damnatus sit pervenerit.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 尤利乌斯法命令向那些取得该笔钱财的人追偿；那是已被判罪者曾经收取的钱财。

Pro L. Flacco §13 — Cicero: archived Latin

lege hac recenti ac nova certus est inquisitioni comitum numerus constitutus.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 这部新近制定的法律，已经限定调查时随行人员的数目。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 415–428, 485, 501–504 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

9. Lex Servilia de repetundis (Glaucia)

塞尔维利乌斯行省勒索法（格劳基亚）

Type: plebiscitum · Date: Usually dated 104 or 101 BCE; chronology disputed

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

An earlier extortion enactment contained the recipient-recovery clause. Cicero also attributes the requirement of a second hearing to Glaucia.

Verres is invited rhetorically to imagine trial under the older Acilian arrangement. Rabirio Postumo uses the history of unchanged statutory language to contest a new interpretation.

Limit: A predecessor mentioned in argument is not thereby the law in force at either trial. Do not conflate this enactment with other laws bearing the name Servilia.

Text relationships:

• Pro Rabirio Postumo — Statutory predecessor. A historical comparison of unchanged recovery language or the two-hearing procedure.
• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career — Statutory predecessor. A historical comparison of unchanged recovery language or the two-hearing procedure.

Enactment: 104 or 101 BCE; disputed. Competing dates, not a continuous interval.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Rabirio Postumo: Speech — 54 BCE; Statutory predecessor.
• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career: Published text — 70 BCE; Statutory predecessor.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

格劳基亚的塞尔维利亚法不能与凯皮奥同姓的审判法混同；铜表归属及年代均有研究史上的分歧。

Existence & identification. Rabirio Postumo 9 attributes the inherited recipient clause to the Servilian law. Verrines II.1.26 contrasts its two-hearing arrangement with Acilian procedure. These identify particular procedural innovations, not the full statute.

Dating argument. Glaucia’s law is conventionally assigned to 104 or 101 BCE; the exact chronology is disputed. Rotondi’s older placement around 111 differs sharply and rests on assumptions about reuse of the Bembine bronze. It is recorded as an older reconstruction, not silently adopted.

Legal & procedural operation. The important comparisons concern the selection of an accuser, a repeated hearing and reaching money transferred to another recipient. The two-stage hearing could be exploited for delay in Verres’ prosecution.

Text & documentary survival. Crawford distinguishes the inscribed Gracchan repetundae law from innovations associated with Glaucia. The Tarentum fragment has been assigned to several different laws; its label cannot securely supply Glaucia’s complete text.

Disputes & limits. Keep Glaucia’s statute distinct from Caepio’s Servilian jury legislation. A shared gentilicium does not identify proposer, date, jury composition or operative clauses.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 322
• M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52
• M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 209
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 493-496

Pro C. Rabirio Postumo §9 — Cicero: archived Latin

in lege Servilia

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在塞尔维利乌斯法中

In C. Verrem §2.1.26 — Cicero: archived Latin

Glaucia primus tulit ut comperendinaretur reus

中文（仅译所引句段）： 格劳基亚最先立法，规定被告须经历第二次审理

Greenidge (1901): pp. 493–496, 501–504 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

10. Lex Acilia repetundarum

阿基利乌斯行省勒索法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: Before Glaucia; exact year disputed

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Cicero contrasts the Acilian possibility of conviction after one hearing, or postponement for further inquiry, with the later obligatory second hearing.

The comparison exposes the tactical significance of trial scheduling and evidence presentation in the Verrine prosecution.

Limit: Cicero’s “I restore that Acilian law to you” is a rhetorical hypothetical, not a legislative revival. The statutory fragments elsewhere surviving epigraphically are not reproduced or reconstructed here.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career — Explicit comparison. Hypothetical procedural comparison, not the current statutory basis.

Enactment disputed: Before Glaucia; exact year disputed. 123–122 BCE is a traditional identification; LEPOR favours a distinct Acilian measure shortly before 111.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career: Published text — 70 BCE; Explicit comparison.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

应把西塞罗所称《阿基利亚法》与现存追偿法铜表区分：铜表确实存在，但二者同一仍是需要论证的鉴定。

Existence & identification. Verrines II.1.26 expressly contrasts the Acilian law with the Servilian law. The bronze repetundae statute conventionally associated with it supplies a second, documentary evidence stream, whose precise statutory identification remains debated.

Dating argument. The previous 123–122 BCE label conflated a conventional attribution with a secure date. LEPOR notice 3 favours a separate Acilian measure shortly before 111, succeeding a Sempronian law; notice 682 prefers Sempronian attribution for the bronze. Crawford dates the bronze to the Gracchan period but remains neutral about naming Acilius as proposer. The named Acilian law is securely earlier than Glaucia’s Servilian law; its exact year remains disputed.

Legal & procedural operation. The bronze regulates patrons, selection of jurors, witnesses, voting, assessment, recovery and rewards. Its absence of a clear clause on presentation of the parties’ speeches matters: a detailed procedural reconstruction still has gaps.

Text & documentary survival. Documentary control: Crawford, Roman Statutes I, law 1; CIL I² 583. The reverse carries the agrarian law of 111 BCE. Fragment survival, early copies and restoration all mediate the edition. Do not call every supplemented letter a surviving letter.

Disputes & limits. The existence of an inscribed extortion statute is secure; equating that object with the named Acilian law is a further identification. Crawford rejects its equation with Glaucia’s law, explaining the missing characteristic innovations.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 312-313
• M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 39-42
• M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. I (1996), pp. 51-52
• LEPOR, notice 3: Loi Acilia de repetundis
• LEPOR, notice 682: Loi Sempronia (plutôt qu’Acilia) de repetundis

In C. Verrem §2.1.26 — Cicero: archived Latin

ego tibi illam Aciliam legem restituo

中文（仅译所引句段）： 我现在为你恢复那部阿基利乌斯法

Greenidge (1901): pp. 493–496 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

11. Lex Rupilia

鲁皮利乌斯西西里司法规约

Type: provincial · Date: 132 or 131 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Cicero describes a decree of P. Rupilius made with ten commissioners, called lex Rupilia in Sicily. It allocates adjudication according to litigants’ civic identities and the type of dispute.

Same-city Sicilian disputes use local law; inter-city disputes require the appointed selection procedure. Roman–Sicilian disputes have specific rules for the judge’s civic status.

Limit: This is a provincial administrative settlement, not a Roman comitial lex merely because Sicilians call it lex. Cicero’s account of Verres’ departures supplies an accusation, not an independently preserved trial verdict.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration — Contested legality. The governing provincial jurisdictional arrangement is the standard against which Verres’ judicial conduct is measured.

Settlement: 132 or 131 BCE. Competing dates: 132 consular year; Rotondi p. 489 dates the settlement 131.

Effect / use: Invoked in the Verrines of 70 BCE as the existing provincial jurisdictional arrangement against which Verres’ conduct is tested.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration: Published text — 70 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

鲁皮利乌斯的安排应视为总督与十名委员形成的司法规定；132与131年的差别需说明，不能直接称为完整行省法典。

Existence & identification. Verrines II.2.32 calls the arrangement a decretum of Rupilius made with ten commissioners and says the Sicilians call it the Rupilian law. §§37–44 test its operation in Heraclius’ inheritance dispute.

Dating argument. The former atlas date 132 BCE needs qualification. Rotondi dates the settlement to 131; 132 is the consulship and commonly repeated dating. Display 132–131 BCE, with the disagreement explained, not as a two-year effective term.

Legal & procedural operation. The rules distinguish disputes within one city, between Sicilians of different cities, between an individual and a community, and between Roman and Sicilian parties. The method of choosing judges varies with those categories.

Text & documentary survival. No self-contained provincial charter survives here. Cicero’s terminology itself warns against treating this as an ordinary Roman popular statute. The governor’s subsequent edict helps sustain local and inter-community rules in practice.

Disputes & limits. Dubouloz shows why alleged injustice cannot always be reduced to a technically illegal appointment: Verres could correct formal selection while still exerting pressure. Preserve Cicero’s accusations separately from that procedural analysis.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 489
• Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 104-108
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132

In C. Verrem §2.2.32 — Cicero: archived Latin

ex P. Rupili decreto, quod is de decem legatorum sententia statuit, quam illi legem Rupiliam vocant

中文（仅译所引句段）： 依据普布利乌斯·鲁皮利乌斯经十名使节合议所定的命令；当地人称之为鲁皮利乌斯法

Greenidge (1901): pp. 109–132 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

12. Lex Hieronica

希耶罗西西里什一税规制

Type: provincial · Date: Royal Sicilian regime retained under Roman rule

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The Hieronian system regulates the Sicilian tithe and disputes between cultivators and collectors. Cicero represents continuity of its terms as part of Rome’s provincial commitments.

Its assessment and collection procedures matter because an edict favoring a collector can turn a nominal tax obligation into an effectively unlimited demand.

Limit: The designation refers to an inherited royal fiscal system, not a Roman popular enactment. The text’s claim of unbroken legitimate continuity is part of Cicero’s prosecution narrative.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration — Contested legality. The existing tax and adjudication regime is contrasted with Verres’ innovations.
• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation — Contested legality. The existing tax and adjudication regime is contrasted with Verres’ innovations.

Origin: Sicilian royal period; undated. No exact creation date established in this register.

Effect / use: Reported as the fiscal regime retained under Roman rule and contrasted with Verres’ governorship of 73–71 BCE, in the published Verrines of 70 BCE. No continuous effective interval is reconstructed.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration: Published text — 70 BCE; Contested legality.
• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation: Published text — 70 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

希耶罗粮税制度的王政背景、罗马沿用与韦雷斯时期实际运作须分层；建筑遗存只能辅助重建行政实践，不能代替法条。

Existence & identification. Verrines II.3.12–15 describes the fiscal arrangement associated with Hiero and Roman retention of it; II.2.32 expressly connects disputes between cultivators and tithe contractors with the Hieronian grain law.

Dating argument. The evidence supports a royal Sicilian background before Roman incorporation, followed by later Roman use. It does not date a single act of promulgation or prove that every Republican provision originated with Hiero II.

Legal & procedural operation. The system connects tithe auctions, assessment, local cultivators, contractors and dispute resolution. Verres’ alleged abuses operate through changes to these relationships and the practical availability of remedies, not simply through a different nominal tax rate.

Text & documentary survival. No original royal code is reproduced. Bell investigates architectural and administrative traces at Morgantina as evidence for fiscal practices; archaeological association with the system is an inference, not an inscribed copy of the law.

Disputes & limits. Separate continuity of a named institution from unchanged wording or unchanged territorial coverage. Cicero’s idealized contrast between inherited order and Verres’ conduct serves the prosecution.

Critical reading:

• Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 107-108
• Malcolm Bell III, “Apronius in the Agora: Sicilian Civil Architecture and the Lex Hieronica”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 117-120
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132

In C. Verrem §2.2.32 — Cicero: archived Latin

inter aratores et decumanos lege frumentaria, quam Hieronicam appellant, iudicia fiunt.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 耕作者与什一税承包人之间，依照所谓希耶罗粮税法进行审判。

In C. Verrem §2.3.15 — Cicero: archived Latin

decumas lege Hieronica semper vendundas censuerunt

中文（仅译所引句段）： 他们一贯决定，什一税的承包权应按希耶罗法出售

Greenidge (1901): pp. 109–132 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

13. Verres’ urban inheritance edict

维勒斯在罗马关于继承的告示

Type: edict · Date: 74 BCE urban praetorship

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

In the Asellus inheritance, Verres is accused of changing the edict so that a daughter’s inheritance, valid when her father died, would no longer be recognized. Cicero attacks retrospective alteration of legal expectations.

The issue concerns praetorian treatment of a testament and its relation to the lex Voconia, not an accusation that Verres himself legislated a new comitial inheritance statute.

Limit: Distinguish an allegation of an opportunistic edict from the independent proof of its motivation. The later Cornelian edict law of 67 BCE cannot be applied retroactively to this conduct.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career — Contested legality. The Asellus case tests retrospective edict-making and the protection of a named heir.

Edict issued: 74 BCE. Dated to the urban praetorship.

Effect / use: The challenged urban edict belongs to 74 BCE; the accusation discussing it dates to 70 BCE.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career: Published text — 70 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

74年的城市裁判官告示因追溯影响既有遗嘱而受攻击；其与《沃科尼亚法》的关系是争议所在，不能把二者合并。

Existence & identification. Verrines II.1.104–110 recounts the urban inheritance edict and its effect on Asellus’ daughter. Cicero contrasts Verres’ innovation with established law and the treatment of earlier wills.

Dating argument. 74 BCE dates Verres’ urban praetorship, during which the challenged edict belongs. The accusation was published in 70. Neither date should be mistaken for the enactment of the older Voconian law.

Legal & procedural operation. The dispute concerns access to an inheritance through praetorian handling of a will and the relevance of census status. Cicero attacks retrospective alteration of the consequences of acts already performed in reliance on existing rules.

Text & documentary survival. The evidence is the prosecutor’s report of edictal wording and practice. No posted urban edict is separately available. The account must be read with the whole Asellus episode.

Disputes & limits. Cicero’s examples involving forgery and homicide illustrate prospectivity; they are not additional charges against Asellus’ daughter. Treat Verres’ administrative innovation separately from the statute he purportedly used.

Critical reading:

• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99
• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284

In C. Verrem §2.1.104 — Cicero: archived Latin

legis aequitas, voluntas patris, edicta praetorum, consuetudo iuris eius quod erat tum cum asellus est mortuus.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 法律的公平、父亲的意愿、历任裁判官的告示，以及阿塞卢斯死亡时的法律惯例。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 79–99 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

14. Lex Voconia

沃科尼乌斯继承法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 169 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The Voconian inheritance restrictions are central to Cicero’s argument that Asellus’ daughter could lawfully inherit: the applicability of the law depends on the statutory classification, not simply on the heir being female.

Cicero contrasts its temporal reach with Verres’ edict. In Balbo, the law is used as an example in the discussion of whether allied communities adopt Roman legislation.

Limit: Do not summarize this as a universal prohibition on women inheriting. Balbo’s citizenship is not granted under the lex Voconia.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career — Contested legality. The testament’s statutory eligibility and the argument against retrospective alteration.
• Pro Balbo — Explicit comparison. Balbo §21 uses inheritance legislation as an example of local adoption, not as a citizenship-granting law.

Enacted: 169 BCE. Conventional enactment year.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career: Published text — 70 BCE; Contested legality.
• Pro Balbo: Speech — 56 BCE; Explicit comparison.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

《沃科尼亚法》不是对女性继承的一概禁止；遗嘱人的财产登记条件和继承人与受遗赠人的区别至关重要。

Existence & identification. Verrines II.1.106–110 names the law in the Asellus inheritance dispute. Gaius 2.226 and 2.274 separately report restrictions on legacies and on instituting a woman as heir.

Dating argument. 169 BCE is the conventional year of the tribune Q. Voconius Saxa’s enactment, supported by the historical tradition collected by Rotondi. Its invocation by Cicero in 70 is evidence of later relevance.

Legal & procedural operation. The restriction depends on the testator’s assessed property status; it is not a ban on all female inheritance. Gaius also reports a restriction preventing a legatee from receiving more than heirs, and later mechanisms that could circumvent the restriction.

Text & documentary survival. The law is known through separate literary and juristic witnesses. Their monetary thresholds and formulations require care; the dossier does not present a synthesized modern wording as a complete statute.

Disputes & limits. Verres’ treatment of an uncensused testator is central to Cicero’s criticism. Later fideicommissary practice is evidence of the statute’s reception, not a provision enacted in 169.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 283-284
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-99
• LEPOR, notice 757: Loi Voconia

In C. Verrem §2.1.108 — Cicero: archived Latin

in lege Voconia non est fecit fecerit

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在沃科尼乌斯法里，并没有“已经做过或今后做出”这样的措辞

Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21 — Cicero: archived Latin

de mulierum hereditatibus

中文（仅译所引句段）： 关于妇女的继承

Greenidge (1901): pp. 79–99 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

15. Verres’ edict favoring the tithe collector

维勒斯偏袒什一税承包人的告示

Type: edict · Date: 73–71 BCE, Sicilian governorship

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Cicero reports an edict compelling a cultivator to deliver whatever quantity the collector declared due. The prosecution stresses the inequality between immediate compulsion and nominal remedies against an excessive claim.

The operative question is who determines the amount and whether a cultivator can practically challenge it. The fiscal norm and the governor’s remedial machinery must be read together.

Limit: The edict is reported by an adversarial advocate. “Verrine law” elsewhere in the speech is polemic, not evidence of an enactment by the Roman people.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation — Contested legality. A concrete edict changes the practical operation of the pre-existing tax regime.

Edict issued: during 73–71 BCE. Governorship interval, not proof of a three-year effective term.

Effect / use: Edictal conduct belongs to the governorship of 73–71 BCE and is discussed in the Verrines of 70 BCE; the exact issue date and duration are not independently established.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation: Published text — 70 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

问题不止是税额，而在先行强征、审判员指定与救济实际可得性；“韦雷斯法”是修辞称呼，不证明存在人民大会法律。

Existence & identification. Verrines II.3.25 reports an edict compelling payment of what the tithe collector demanded. §35 quotes the offer of recuperatores if either party wished. These are distinct clauses within Cicero’s reconstruction of fiscal coercion.

Dating argument. The edict belongs to Verres’ Sicilian governorship of 73–71 BCE. A specific issue day, annual republication and uninterrupted duration cannot be inferred from the governorship interval.

Legal & procedural operation. Nominal remedies against excessive collection coexist with a rule allowing immediate extraction. Cicero argues that farmers could not realistically recover through judges beholden to the governor. The imbalance concerns enforcement, forum and bargaining power.

Text & documentary survival. This is a forensic report of a provincial edict, not a law voted by the Roman people. The polemical label “Verrian law” does not alter that legal form.

Disputes & limits. Dubouloz distinguishes a choice between local adjudication and the governor’s intervention from the older reconstruction of a choice between a single judge and recuperators. Apparent procedural options must be studied in their provincial setting.

Critical reading:

• Julien Dubouloz, “La juridiction du gouverneur provincial. Réflexions sur les Verrines comme sources pour l’histoire du droit”, in J. R. W. Prag (ed.), Sicilia nutrix plebis Romanae (2007), pp. 105-108
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132

In C. Verrem §2.3.25 — Cicero: archived Latin

quantum decumanus edidisset aratorem sibi decumae dare oportere, ut tantum arator decumano dare cogeretur.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 什一税承包人申报耕作者应向自己交付多少什一税，就强迫耕作者向承包人交付多少。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 109–132 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

16. Lex Plautia / Plotia de vi

普劳提乌斯公共暴力法

Type: uncertain · Date: 63 BCE; origin disputed

Identification: Conventional framework; chronology and relation to Lutatia disputed

The usual statutory identification of the public-violence proceedings underlying Pro Sulla and Pro Sestio is the lex Plautia. It must be separated from civil interdicts and Lucullus’ damages remedy.

Caelio concerns a public de vi inquiry, but §70 names Q. Catulus as the law’s proposer. The relationship between that enactment and the law called Plautia is disputed.

Limit: The supplied Greenidge volume, p. 424 n. 6, explicitly leaves the relationship unresolved. No secure plebiscitum classification or exact enactment date is imposed here. In Milone §35, a Plautian prosecution concerns Clodius in an earlier case, not Milo’s present special trial.

Text relationships:

• Pro Sulla — Reconstructed framework. Conventional identification of the de vi court; not an explicit full statutory quotation in the selected dossier excerpts.
• Pro Sestio — Reconstructed framework. Conventional identification of the de vi court; not an explicit full statutory quotation in the selected dossier excerpts.
• Pro Caelio — Disputed identification. The common Plautian label must be tested against Caelio §70, which names Catulus.
• Pro Milone — Earlier proceeding. Milone §35 recalls Clodius’ separate prosecution; Milo’s current proceeding is Pompeian.

Attested application: 63 BCE; origin disputed. Sallust, Catiline 31.4; earlier enactment hypotheses remain disputed.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Sulla: Speech — 62 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• Pro Caelio: Speech — 56 BCE; Disputed identification.
• Pro Milone: Trial / delivery — 52 BCE; Earlier proceeding.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

《普劳提亚暴力法》有明确名称见证，但创设年与所谓《卢塔提亚法》的关系不明；米洛提及的旧案不可变成其本案法源。

Existence & identification. Milone 35 expressly mentions proceedings against Clodius under a Plotian law. Sallust, Catiline 31.4, provides a separate explicit witness to Catiline being prosecuted under the Plautian law by L. Paulus.

Dating argument. An explicit historical attestation belongs to the Catilinarian crisis of 63 BCE. Earlier enactment dates, including 78, 70 and the mid-60s, depend on identifying related measures and proposers. Replace the former unqualified mid-60s terminus with the demonstrable 63 BCE witness.

Legal & procedural operation. The statute provides a public prosecution for vis. The Clodius proceeding mentioned in Milone is an earlier case; Milo’s trial in 52 rests on Pompey’s special law. Caelius’ governing statute raises a distinct identification problem.

Text & documentary survival. No complete statute is recovered. The spelling Plautia/Plotia and the interpretation of Caelio 70 must be tracked; later references to property held by force do not reconstruct the whole criminal law.

Disputes & limits. Rotondi regards a separate Lutatius law as less likely than a Plautian law promoted under Catulus’ influence. Other reconstructions separate them. The atlas retains two research records without claiming two independently proven enactments.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424

Pro T. Annio Milone §35 — Cicero: archived Latin

lege Plotia

中文（仅译所引句段）： 依普洛提乌斯法

Pro M. Caelio §70 — Cicero: archived Latin

quam legem Quintus Catulus

中文（仅译所引句段）： 这部法律，昆图斯·卡图卢斯

Greenidge (1901): pp. 424–425 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

17. Law of Q. Catulus on vis (lex Lutatia)

卡图卢斯公共暴力法（卢塔提乌斯法）

Type: uncertain · Date: Often associated with 78 BCE; identification disputed

Identification: Proposer named; relationship to Plautia unresolved

Cicero describes the law at the end of Pro Caelio as one proposed by Q. Catulus amid armed civil discord, directed to the state’s security rather than private sexual animosity.

That description is part of the defence’s effort to show a mismatch between the public purpose of the court and the accusation against Caelius.

Limit: The conventional title lex Lutatia and its relation to the lex Plautia are interpretive identifications. Do not display them as two independently proven cumulative charges against Caelius.

Text relationships:

• Pro Caelio — Disputed identification. The speech itself names Catulus; Greenidge discusses competing reconstructions of the law’s identity.

Possible enactment: 78 BCE?. Identification and dating disputed.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Caelio: Speech — 56 BCE; Disputed identification.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

“卢塔提亚法”主要由《为凯利乌斯辩护》70节所称卡图卢斯推出；保留独立条目是为了显示争议，并非断言另有一部完整法律。

Existence & identification. Caelio 70 says that Q. Catulus carried the law amid armed civil dissension. It does not preserve an independently headed text called “Lex Lutatia”; that title expresses an identification from the proposer’s name.

Dating argument. 78 BCE is a common reconstruction connecting the allusion with Catulus and Lepidus, not a consular date written in the quoted passage. Alternative constructions of the relationship with the Plautian law remain possible.

Legal & procedural operation. Cicero uses the law’s supposed emergency purpose to argue that Caelius’ alleged conduct does not belong within its intended scope. This is purposive forensic argument, not a complete enumeration of statutory offences.

Text & documentary survival. The decisive witness is a single Ciceronian locus. Repetition of that locus in many modern books does not create independent ancient corroboration.

Disputes & limits. Greenidge explicitly reviews the uncertain connection; Rotondi prefers a Plautian measure associated with Catulus over a separate Lutatius enactment. The record remains useful as a disputed identification rather than a confidently independent code.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 377-378
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424

Pro M. Caelio §70 — Cicero: archived Latin

de vi quaeritis.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 你们所审理的是公共暴力案件。

Greenidge (1901): p. 424 n. 6 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

18. Lex Pompeia de vi

庞培公共暴力法

Type: lex · Date: 52 BCE; Pompey’s sole consulship

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Pompey’s special law specifically includes the killing on the Appian Way. Cicero argues that ordering an inquiry leaves room for a lawful-killing defence despite an admitted death.

Asconius describes a shortened trial sequence with witnesses first and final speeches limited to two hours for the prosecution and three for the defence; the president was specially elected.

Limit: This is the law governing Milo’s principal trial. Pompey’s separate ambitus law of the same year and other later proceedings against Milo must not be merged with it.

Text relationships:

• Pro Milone — Governing charge. Special statutory inquiry; the factual killing and its legal justification remain distinct issues.

Enacted: 52 BCE. Special law in the sole consulship.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Milone: Trial / delivery — 52 BCE; Governing charge.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

庞培于52年创设的特别审理程序应与55年的审判员选任法区分；阿斯科尼乌斯保存审期、证人程序与发言限时等重要细节。

Existence & identification. Milone 15 describes the new inquiry concerning the Appian Way killing. Asconius 36–40 C supplies the special legislative and trial arrangements and distinguishes them from normal procedure.

Dating argument. 52 BCE is fixed by Pompey’s sole consulship and the killing of Clodius. The special inquiry must be kept separate from Pompey’s jury-selection measure of 55; Asconius supplies the event sequence and trial regulations.

Legal & procedural operation. The law accelerates the case, gives witnesses a prominent preliminary place and restricts the final speeches to two hours for prosecution and three for defence. The president and selected jury belong to this particular statutory framework.

Text & documentary survival. Cicero’s surviving speech is a revised published text; Asconius is a later historical commentator. Neither is a complete original statute, but together they let us distinguish trial design from defence strategy.

Disputes & limits. The exceptional law does not itself prove Milo’s guilt. A general natural-law defence and a particular statutory question can coexist without being identical.

Critical reading:

• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 389-396
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 573-574
• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405

Pro T. Annio Milone §15 — Cicero: archived Latin

tulit enim de caede quae in Appia via facta esset, in qua P. Clodius occisus esset.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 因为他提出的法案，是关于阿庇亚大道上发生的、普布利乌斯·克洛狄乌斯在其中被杀的那起杀人事件。

Asconius, In Milonianam, pp. 36–40 Clark

Greenidge (1901): pp. 389–396, 573–574 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

19. Lex Calpurnia de ambitu

卡尔普尔尼乌斯选举舞弊法

Type: lex · Date: 67 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The Calpurnian law supplied a severe anti-bribery regime before Cicero’s Tullian addition. Murena discusses how paid attendance, seats at shows and public entertainments may fall under it.

The defence disputes whether ordinary manifestations of electoral support meet the prohibited categories. It is the construction of offences, not simply a count of supporters, that matters.

Limit: A senatorial interpretation of what violates the law is not itself the same instrument as the lex. The earlier conviction of P. Sulla for ambitus is distinct from the conspiracy charge defended in Pro Sulla.

Text relationships:

• Pro Murena — Governing charge. The anti-ambitus framework as discussed alongside the recent Tullian enactment.
• Pro Sulla — Earlier proceeding. The prior electoral conviction explains Sulla’s lost consulship, not the statutory charge in the present defence; Greenidge p. 424 discusses the changing penalties.

Enacted: 67 BCE. Conventional enactment year.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Murena: Speech — 63 BCE; Governing charge.
• Pro Sulla: Speech — 62 BCE; Earlier proceeding.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

《卡尔普尔尼亚选举贿赂法》与63年的解释性元老院决议应分层；对行为的法律定性不能代替其实际发生的证明。

Existence & identification. Murena 46 names the Calpurnian law; §67 reports a senatorial interpretation of conduct contrary to it. Asconius’ discussion of Cornelius and Dio 36.38 set it in the legislative competition of 67.

Dating argument. 67 BCE is the consular date of C. Calpurnius Piso and M’. Acilius Glabrio. The alternative expanded title Acilia Calpurnia reflects that setting, not a second independently established statute.

Legal & procedural operation. The law strengthened electoral-corruption sanctions. Murena’s defence distinguishes ordinary personal support from paid attendance, organized distribution of seats and indiscriminate feasting. The Senate’s interpretation in 63 must be treated as a later measure.

Text & documentary survival. The original law does not survive complete. Penalties and legislative circumstances must be assembled from separate witnesses; Cicero’s §67 preserves the interpretive resolution more directly than the whole statute.

Disputes & limits. Sulla’s earlier electoral conviction and later conspiracy prosecution are separate cases. The Calpurnian law should not be made the governing law of every later charge against a convicted candidate.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425

Pro L. Murena §46 — Cicero: archived Latin

erat enim severissime scripta Calpurnia.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 因为卡尔普尔尼乌斯法本已规定得极为严厉。

Pro L. Murena §67 — Cicero: archived Latin

contra legem Calpurniam

中文（仅译所引句段）： 违反卡尔普尔尼乌斯法

Greenidge (1901): pp. 424–425 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

20. Lex Tullia de ambitu

图利乌斯选举舞弊法

Type: lex · Date: 63 BCE; Cicero’s consular legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Cicero’s new anti-ambitus law increased penalties and tightened provisions affecting the prosecution of electoral corruption. Defending Murena therefore exposes Cicero to a charge of inconsistency as the law’s author.

Murena §§46–47 describes the legislative response to demands for severity, including exile and a penalty relating to illness as an excuse. The defence distinguishes enforcing the law from assuming the defendant guilty.

Limit: Do not attach every rule quoted in Murena to the Tullian enactment: §67 explicitly concerns the Calpurnian law and a senatorial resolution. Greenidge treats the familiar ten-year exile figure with a source qualification.

Text relationships:

• Pro Murena — Governing charge. Cicero defends a defendant against the background of his own recent anti-bribery legislation.

Enacted: 63 BCE. Cicero’s consular legislation.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Murena: Speech — 63 BCE; Governing charge.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

图利乌斯法是西塞罗任执政官时的立法；两年内举办角斗表演的禁令及遗嘱例外可由《诘问瓦提尼乌斯》直接核查。

Existence & identification. Murena 3 and 47 make Cicero’s own consular legislation central to the defence; Vatinium 37 expressly states the restriction on gladiatorial shows within two years before candidature, with a testamentary exception.

Dating argument. 63 BCE is the enactment setting in Cicero’s consulship, preceding Murena’s trial. The ten-year exile provision is supported through later historical testimony, not a complete law quoted in Murena.

Legal & procedural operation. The defence faces the tension between Cicero’s authorship of a stricter law and his representation of a successful candidate. Restrictions on spectacles and penalties are distinct provisions. The reference to illness excuses has been interpreted as concerning defendants or jurors; LEPOR notice 717 favours defendants and does not treat the allocation as self-evident.

Text & documentary survival. Ciceronian speeches preserve clauses or argumentative references; Dio supplies a later narrative of penalties. Their evidential proximity is different.

Disputes & limits. A testamentary exception is not a general permission to buy popularity through shows. Nor does Cicero’s claim to defend within his own law establish acquittal as a general interpretation of every clause.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 379
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425
• LEPOR, notice 717: Loi Tullia Antonia de ambitu

Pro L. Murena §47 — Cicero: archived Latin

exsilium in nostrum ordinem

中文（仅译所引句段）： 对我们这一等级施加流放

Greenidge (1901): p. 425 and notes (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

21. Lex Licinia de sodaliciis

李锡尼乌斯选举结社法

Type: lex · Date: 55 BCE; Crassus’ consular legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The law targets electoral organization through corrupt sodalicia. Plancio explicitly challenges the attempt to sweep all ambitus allegations into its special framework.

Its distinctive jury selection by tribes matters: the prosecution designates tribes on the premise that those communities know the alleged distribution of bribes. Cicero attacks the fit between the chosen procedure and the alleged acts.

Limit: This is not the lex Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared family names must never be treated as identity of enactment.

Text relationships:

• Pro Plancio — Governing charge. Expressly named statute and its special jury-selection mechanism.

Enacted: 55 BCE. Crassus’ consular legislation.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Plancio: Speech — 54 BCE; Governing charge.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

此法针对有组织的选举腐败，其部落选取审判员程序是辩护重点；它不是《利基尼亚—尤尼亚法》。

Existence & identification. Plancio 36–39 expressly discusses the Licinian law, its proposer Crassus and the special selection of judges from tribes. This is direct evidence for procedure as well as statutory identification.

Dating argument. 55 BCE places the measure in Crassus’ second consulship. Plancius’ trial in 54 is a later application. Neither date supplies an exact promulgation day.

Legal & procedural operation. The charge concerns organized electoral corruption through associations. The prosecutor nominates four tribes and the defendant rejects one, producing a distinctive disadvantage compared with ordinary jury challenge. Cicero asks whether the selected tribes correspond to the alleged electoral organization.

Text & documentary survival. The surviving speech explains the mechanism in advocacy, rather than transmitting the whole law. The label sodalicia should not be made equivalent to every voluntary association.

Disputes & limits. Keep this law distinct from the Licinia Iunia on legislative procedure. Shared nomenclature and electoral background do not make their legal functions interchangeable.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 407
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456

Pro Cn. Plancio §36 — Cicero: archived Latin

nomine legis Liciniae, quae est de sodaliciis, omnis ambitus leges complexus es

中文（仅译所引句段）： 你借着那部关于结社的李锡尼乌斯法之名，把所有选举舞弊法都包罗了进去

Greenidge (1901): pp. 425, 433–456 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

22. Lex Papia

帕皮乌斯公民身份审查法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 65 BCE

Identification: Named in speeches; current court attribution reconstructed

The Papian enactment is associated with proceedings challenging claims to Roman citizenship. Archia mentions it when rejecting the idea that his local enrollment was opportunistically fabricated.

The inquiry into citizenship must be separated from the law by which citizenship was acquired. In Balbo §52, Cicero explicitly cites a Papian proceeding involving M. Cassius as precedent.

Limit: The attribution of the Archias/Balbus proceedings to the Papian framework is a reconstruction supported by this context, not an extant complete indictment. In particular, Balbo §52 names another man’s case.

Text relationships:

• Pro Archia — Reconstructed framework. Status challenge; distinguish the Papian inquiry from the grant under the Plautia Papiria.
• Pro Balbo — Precedent / framework. The expressly named Papian case is Cassius’ precedent in §52; its relevance is not the source of Balbus’ grant.

Enacted: 65 BCE. Conventional enactment year.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Archia: Speech — 62 BCE; Reconstructed framework.
• Pro Balbo: Speech — 56 BCE; Precedent / framework.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

帕皮乌斯法涉及外来者与身份审查，不是阿尔基阿斯取得公民权的依据；同名线索不能与奥古斯都时代法律混淆。

Existence & identification. Archia 10 names the Papian law in discussing people who claimed civic privileges; Balbo 52 gives a specifically Papian prosecution involving Cassius. Dio 37.9.5 places expulsion of outsiders in Papius’ tribunate.

Dating argument. 65 BCE is the conventional enactment year. The later Archias and Balbus speeches show use and comparison, not the grant of citizenship in that year.

Legal & procedural operation. The instrument belongs to exclusion of non-citizens and scrutiny of asserted status. In Archias’ defence the positive entitlement rests on the Plautia Papiria, while the Papian framework concerns contesting that status.

Text & documentary survival. Ancient references survive through speeches, commentary and historical narrative. They do not supply a complete procedural code or all exceptions to expulsion.

Disputes & limits. The register distinguishes an explicit law named in a precedent from a reconstructed governing framework for a present case. Do not confuse this Republican law with the Augustan Papia Poppaea.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 376
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425

Pro Archia Poeta §10 — Cicero: archived Latin

post legem Papiam

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在帕皮乌斯法颁布之后

Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §52 — Cicero: archived Latin

quid essent lege Papia de M. Cassio Mamertinis repetentibus iudicaturi

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在马墨耳提人提出追究时，他们将如何依据帕皮乌斯法对马尔库斯·卡西乌斯作出裁断

Greenidge (1901): p. 425 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

23. Lex Plautia Papiria

普劳提乌斯—帕皮里乌斯公民权法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 89 BCE; tribunes Silvanus and Carbo

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Archia §7 states three cumulative conditions: enrollment in an allied community, domicile in Italy when the law was passed, and a declaration before a praetor within sixty days.

The defence must establish qualification and the declaration. Local enrollment, Roman residence, and the praetor’s register answer different parts of the statutory test.

Limit: This is the source of Archias’ claimed Roman citizenship, not the lex Papia of 65. The sentence at the end of numbered §7 continues in §8. This section boundary is not a lacuna or evidence that statutory text is missing.

Text relationships:

• Pro Archia — Source of entitlement. The three statutory conditions structure Cicero’s citizenship proof.

Enacted: 89 BCE. Tribunician enactment.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Archia: Speech — 62 BCE; Source of entitlement.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

公民权取得取决于盟邦登记、意大利住所及六十日内向裁判官申报等条件；证据证明这些条件，而非文学声望本身。

Existence & identification. Archia 7 quotes the eligibility conditions associated with Silvanus and Carbo: enrolment in an allied community, domicile in Italy when the law was passed and declaration before a praetor within sixty days.

Dating argument. 89 BCE is the conventional Social War date. The declaration window is measured from enactment; it is not sixty days after Archias’ later trial. The speech’s account of compliance is evidence offered by the defence.

Legal & procedural operation. The legal case requires linking the person to each condition through community testimony, residence and the praetor’s records. Destruction of municipal records does not itself extinguish citizenship, but changes the evidential problem.

Text & documentary survival. The quoted conditional wording continues into the following section’s narrative. Preserve paragraph boundaries without representing them as a missing part of the law. The official original is not extant here.

Disputes & limits. The statute should not be paraphrased as automatically enfranchising every resident of Italy without conditions. Rotondi’s old discussion contains proposer and procedural details that must be checked against Cicero’s actual wording.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 340-341
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109

Pro Archia Poeta §7 — Cicero: archived Latin

si qui foederatis civitatibus ascripti fuissent, si tum cum lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent et si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 凡已登记于同盟城邦、在该法提出时以意大利为住所，并在六十日内向裁判官申报者。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 99–109, 425 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

24. Lex Gellia Cornelia

盖利乌斯—科尔内利乌斯公民权授权法

Type: lex · Date: 72 BCE; consuls L. Gellius and Cn. Cornelius

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The statute recognizes individual citizenship grants made by Pompey with his council’s advice. Balbo §19 explicitly says the case arises from this law.

Pompey’s grant and documentary record are admitted; the dispute concerns whether an allied treaty community’s status limits the grant and whether local adoption is required.

Limit: It authorizes the individual grant at issue. Do not substitute the lex Iulia of 90 or the lex Plautia Papiria simply because all three concern citizenship.

Text relationships:

• Pro Balbo — Source of entitlement. The speech explicitly identifies the authorizing law and isolates the treaty objection.

Enacted: 72 BCE. Consular enactment.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Balbo: Speech — 56 BCE; Source of entitlement.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

格利乌斯—科尔内利乌斯法授权的个人授籍，与城邦整体接受某项罗马法律是不同机制；加的斯条约问题须另行审查。

Existence & identification. Balbo 19 expressly names the law and gives the grant made with the advice of Pompey’s council; §32 tests statutory power against treaty restrictions. Cicero uses the statute as the positive authorization of Balbus’ citizenship.

Dating argument. 72 BCE is the conventional consular date of L. Gellius Publicola and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. Pompey’s grant and the trial of 56 are distinct events in the legal history.

Legal & procedural operation. The question is whether a commander’s authorized individual grant could benefit a citizen of treaty-bound Gades. Cicero separates the statute’s enabling power, the council’s participation and the effect of treaty provisions.

Text & documentary survival. The evidence is a named statute and reported grant inside forensic argument. Neither a complete original statute nor Balbus’ original grant document is reproduced.

Disputes & limits. The community’s becoming fundus for collective legislation is not automatically a requirement for an individual military grant. That distinction is argued in Balbo, not to be flattened into a universal rule without examining the treaty.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 367
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109

Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §19 — Cicero: archived Latin

qua lege videmus ⟨rite⟩ esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii quos Cn. Pompeius de consili sententia singillatim civitate donaverit.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 该法规定：凡格奈乌斯·庞培经顾问团合议而逐一授予公民权者，均依法成为罗马公民。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 99–109, 425 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

25. Lex Iulia de civitate

尤利乌斯公民权法

Type: lex · Date: 90 BCE; L. Julius Caesar, not Caesar’s law of 59

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

In Balbo, the Julian citizenship law supplies a comparison involving grants to allies and Latins and a community’s acceptance of the legislation.

Cicero distinguishes a collective settlement requiring a people to adopt a law from Pompey’s individually authorized grant. The concept fundus fieri is therefore central.

Limit: An analogy about collective adoption must not be turned into the statute under which Balbus personally acquired citizenship. The name Iulia alone cannot identify a law.

Text relationships:

• Pro Balbo — Explicit comparison. Collective adoption is distinguished from the individual Gellian-Cornelian grant.

Enacted: 90 BCE. Citizenship law of L. Julius Caesar.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Balbo: Speech — 56 BCE; Explicit comparison.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

90年的朱利亚公民权法是集体授籍比较材料，并非巴尔布斯个人授籍的直接法源。

Existence & identification. Balbo 21 names the Julian law and discusses peoples becoming fundi. Cicero introduces it as a comparison for collective adoption, not as the immediate instrument granting Balbus citizenship.

Dating argument. 90 BCE dates the citizenship law associated with L. Julius Caesar’s consulship during the Social War. It is not Caesar the dictator’s repetundae law of 59.

Legal & procedural operation. The speech uses collective civic arrangements to explain why one must distinguish community-wide acceptance of a Roman law from an authorized benefit to an individual. Citizenship acquisition and the community’s internal legal order are related but separate.

Text & documentary survival. The statute is reconstructed from literary testimony. The particular fundus argument in Balbo cannot supply every territorial or political condition of the original enfranchisement.

Disputes & limits. Do not cite the Julian law as Balbus’ operative grant, or infer that all allied communities accepted it at the same moment. The relationship in the graph remains comparative.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 338-339
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 99-109

Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §21 — Cicero: archived Latin

ipsa denique Iulia, qua lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data

中文（仅译所引句段）： 最后还有尤利乌斯法本身，依此法，同盟者和拉丁人获得了公民权

Greenidge (1901): pp. 99–109 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

26. Lex Licinia Mucia

李锡尼乌斯—穆基乌斯公民身份法

Type: lex · Date: 95 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Balbo recalls an earlier severe inquiry into claims to Roman citizenship under this consular law.

The precedent supports Cicero’s claim that certain treaty-based objections had not invalidated grants in previous investigations.

Limit: This is an earlier inquiry, not the statute granting Balbus citizenship or the later Papian framework. Absence of a past prosecution is an argument from practice, not a complete proof of every treaty’s meaning.

Text relationships:

• Pro Balbo — Earlier proceeding. Cicero’s historical evidence for his reading of citizenship and treaty law.

Enacted: 95 BCE. Consular enactment.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Balbo: Speech — 56 BCE; Earlier proceeding.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

95年的利基尼亚—穆基亚法限制不具资格的公民身份主张；它在巴尔布斯案中提供历史比较，而非授籍依据。

Existence & identification. Balbo 48 recalls the restrictive law and its severe application. Asconius 67–68 C explains the legislation of Crassus and Scaevola and its connection with resentment among Italian allies.

Dating argument. 95 BCE is the joint consular year of L. Licinius Crassus and Q. Mucius Scaevola. The later Social War is historical consequence and context, not the law’s enactment event.

Legal & procedural operation. The law addressed people asserting Roman citizenship without entitlement. Its use in Balbo is a historical comparison about the handling of status, rather than the positive source of Balbus’ enfranchisement.

Text & documentary survival. Cicero’s reference and Asconius’ explanation are separate literary witnesses; no original census investigation dossier is available here.

Disputes & limits. Asconius’ causal explanation for allied alienation is historical interpretation. It should not be turned into proof that this one statute alone caused the Social War.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 425

Pro L. Cornelio Balbo §48 — Cicero: archived Latin

acerrima de civitate quaestio Licinia et Mucia lege

中文（仅译所引句段）： 依李锡尼乌斯—穆基乌斯法进行的极其严厉的公民身份审查

Greenidge (1901): p. 425 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

27. Leges Porciae / lex Porcia

波尔基乌斯诸法：公民人身保护

Type: lex · Date: Early second century BCE; several Porcian enactments

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Cicero invokes Porcian protection against scourging Roman citizens. In Rabirio the protection is contrasted with the archaic punitive machinery invoked by Labienus; in Verres it exposes abuse of a claimed citizen.

Citizenship, the place and mode of coercion, and the availability of an appeal or protection are separate questions. The speech turns a citizen’s bodily punishment into an issue of public liberty.

Limit: There were several Porcian laws. A singular or plural rhetorical reference does not securely identify the particular act, date or complete original wording.

Text relationships:

• Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo — Protective norm invoked. Challenge to coercive punishment and the duumviral procedure.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments — Protective norm invoked. Verrines II.5.163 invokes Porcian and Sempronian protections in the Gavius narrative.

Enactments: early 2nd century BCE. Several laws; individual dates not secured here.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo: Speech — 63 BCE; Protective norm invoked.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments: Published text — 70 BCE; Protective norm invoked.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

波尔基乌斯诸法必须保留复数；各法作者、日期和境外适用范围不能由一句反杖刑的辩词全部推出。

Existence & identification. Rabirio perduellionis 12 contrasts Porcian protection against rods with the Sempronian protection of citizens’ lives. Republic 2.54 explicitly speaks of three Porcian laws by three Porcii.

Dating argument. Early second-century BCE is a cautious conventional placement. Rotondi’s discussion shows that the attribution and date of each of the three measures remain insecure; the plural should not be compressed into one precisely dated statute.

Legal & procedural operation. The evidence concerns bodily coercion and the safeguards of citizenship. In Rabirius, Cicero mobilizes those protections against an archaizing capital procedure; in the Verrines the issue is a governor’s treatment of citizens.

Text & documentary survival. The laws are known through retrospective literary testimony and allusions, with no complete original text. Family coinage may commemorate civic protection but does not automatically identify all three measures.

Disputes & limits. The reach of provocatio outside Rome and under military command is a separate historical question. The dossier does not derive a universal appeal procedure from the short forensic slogan.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 268-269
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 307-326

Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12 — Cicero: archived Latin

Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit

中文（仅译所引句段）： 波尔基乌斯法使所有罗马公民的身体免遭棍杖鞭打

In C. Verrem §2.5.163 — Cicero: archived Latin

o lex Porcia legesque Semproniae!

中文（仅译所引句段）： 啊，波尔基乌斯法与森普罗尼乌斯诸法！

Greenidge (1901): pp. 307–326, 349–366 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

28. Lex Sempronia de capite civium

森普罗尼乌斯公民生命案件法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 123 BCE; C. Gracchus

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Rabirio §12 attributes to Gaius Gracchus a rule against judging the caput of a Roman citizen without the people’s authorization.

Cicero uses it to attack the duumviral condemnation before the popular stage. This is a constitutional protection and jurisdictional argument, not the definition of perduellio itself.

Limit: Caput includes a citizen’s civic and personal standing; the clause should not be flattened into a modern appellate rule. The plural Sempronian laws in Verres does not prove that every detail belongs to one enactment.

Text relationships:

• Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo — Protective norm invoked. Popular authorization and the legitimacy of capital adjudication.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments — Protective norm invoked. The plural reference in II.5.163 invokes the broader Sempronian protection tradition; attribution of its full scope remains qualified.

Enacted: 123 BCE. Gracchan enactment.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo: Speech — 63 BCE; Protective norm invoked.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments: Published text — 70 BCE; Protective norm invoked.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

塞姆普罗尼乌斯法的重点是公民生命案件的合法授权；紧急状态、常设法庭及58年克洛狄乌斯立法须另作区分。

Existence & identification. Rabirio perduellionis 12 explicitly attributes to a Sempronian law protection against deciding a citizen’s caput without the people’s authorization. Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus 4, supplies historical context for the measure against unauthorized capital action.

Dating argument. 123 BCE is the conventional Gracchan enactment year. The prosecution of Popillius and later invocations in 70 and 63 are distinct episodes, not fresh enactments of the same measure.

Legal & procedural operation. The rule concerns competent authorization for a capital proceeding or deprivation of civic life. Its relationship to standing courts, emergency action and the people’s powers is argued, not resolved merely by quoting a prohibition.

Text & documentary survival. The dossier uses literary witnesses to the law and its interpretation, not an original tablet. The plural Sempronian laws elsewhere in Cicero may refer to a broader legislative tradition.

Disputes & limits. Do not treat the later Clodian general measure of 58 as the same enactment. Nor should Cicero’s defence of his own actions in 63 automatically settle the law’s proper interpretation.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 309-310
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-359

Pro C. Rabirio Perduellionis Reo Ad Quirites §12 — Cicero: archived Latin

C. Gracchus legem tulit ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur

中文（仅译所引句段）： 盖乌斯·格拉古立法规定：未经你们授权，不得审判涉及罗马公民生命与身份的案件。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 307–326, 344–359 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

29. Lex Papiria de dedicationibus

帕皮里乌斯奉献法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: Earlier than 57 BCE; precise date not secured here

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Cicero identifies an old tribunician law forbidding consecration of a building, land or altar without authorization of the plebs.

He demands the legal authorization for consecrating his house. Pontifical questions are joined to a public-law test of who was empowered to dedicate and what an enactment actually authorized.

Limit: This Papirian law is wholly distinct from the Plautia Papiria on citizenship. Cicero’s transfer of a rule concerning public sacred dedications to his private house is part of the interpretive argument.

Text relationships:

• De domo sua — Contested legality. Public authorization is the central test applied to the purported consecration of Cicero’s house.

Pre-existing by: 57 BCE; origin undated. A pre-existing law invoked in 57, not enacted in 57.

Effect / use: Invoked as a pre-existing restriction on dedication in De domo, 57 BCE. “Before 57” is a latest bound, not the creation date.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• De domo sua: Speech — 57 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

123年的既往案例证明人民授权原则的历史背景，却没有点名帕皮里乌斯法，故不能直接确定该法的创设上限；它与304年措施的同一性也有疑问。

Existence & identification. Domo 127–128 names an old tribunician Papirian law forbidding consecration of a building, land or altar without the plebs’ authorization; §§136–137 report the pontiffs’ answer concerning Licinia’s dedication.

Dating argument. The law was already old when invoked in 57 BCE. The Licinia precedent is dated by its consuls to 123 BCE, but §136 does not name the Papirian statute: making that precedent a firm terminus for this specific law would be an inference. Its identification with Livy’s measure of 304 remains disputed.

Legal & procedural operation. The issue is competence to make a dedication binding on public and sacred law. The prior Licinia case provides a model for asking whether Clodius had adequate authority to consecrate Cicero’s site.

Text & documentary survival. Cicero transmits both a legal restriction and a report of pontifical decision-making. These are different documentary layers; neither is an independently surviving original enactment.

Disputes & limits. Livy 9.46.7 describes approval by Senate or a majority of tribunes, whereas Cicero stresses authorization of the plebs. Rotondi therefore doubts simple identity and allows a later supplementary measure.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 234-235
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380

De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §128 — Cicero: archived Latin

lex Papiria vetat aedis iniussu plebis consecrari.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 帕皮里乌斯法禁止未经平民大会授权而将建筑奉为神圣。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 373–380 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

30. Clodius’ enactment naming Cicero’s interdiction

克洛狄乌斯针对西塞罗的禁绝水火决议

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 58 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

The named measure treats Cicero as interdicted from fire and water and underlies the dispossession against which he argues after returning.

Domo §47 attacks the retrospective formula ut interdictum sit: Cicero says that declaring an interdiction to have occurred cannot supply a lawful prior judgment.

Limit: Separate the particular measure naming Cicero from the general Clodian measure concerning execution of citizens without trial. The precise legality is contested in the speech, not settled by calling the act a lex.

Text relationships:

• De domo sua — Contested legality. Named interdiction, retrospective wording, confiscation and restoration.
• Pro Sestio — Historical legal setting. Sestio §25 narrates the proposals directed against Cicero; the present defendant is Sestius, charged with vis.

Enacted: 58 BCE. Named Clodian measure.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• De domo sua: Speech — 57 BCE; Contested legality.
• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Historical legal setting.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

针对西塞罗个人的放逐措施与一般性公民生命法不同；公布、表决、离城与执行的时间顺序仍须谨慎重建。

Existence & identification. Domo 47 criticizes the tense of the named measure against Cicero; §50 reports its charge concerning a false senatorial resolution. His letters and later historians show the practical effects of exile and confiscation.

Dating argument. 58 BCE is secure. Proposed exact March/April dates depend on reconstructing publication, voting and Cicero’s movements; Rotondi records internal scholarly disagreement. The atlas does not claim a verified exact day.

Legal & procedural operation. The measure singles out Cicero and supports interdiction, confiscation and restrictions on assistance or restoration. Cicero challenges it as an unlawful privilegium and denies that a properly authorized judgment preceded it.

Text & documentary survival. The text is preserved in hostile quotation and historical reports, not a complete plebiscite. The general measure concerning untried citizens is registered separately.

Disputes & limits. Greenidge’s reconstruction of a time limit for appearance is criticized by Rotondi. This illustrates why the dossier records arguments rather than harmonizing all accounts into one invented procedure.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 395-396
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 516-525

De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §47 — Cicero: archived Latin

non tulit vt interdicatvr. quid ergo? vt interdictvm sit.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 他提出的不是“应当对其禁绝水火”。那是什么？是“对其已禁绝水火”。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 359–366, 516–525 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

31. Clodian enactment restricting auspicial obstruction

克洛狄乌斯限制以占兆阻止议事的决议

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 58 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Sestio §33 reports restrictions affecting auspices, announcement of adverse signs, intercession and the days on which legislation could be passed, naming the Aelian and Fufian laws.

Vatinium §18 contrasts conduct during his tribunate in 59 with the following year’s change. The sequence prevents applying the 58 measure to justify acts in 59.

Limit: Cicero presents the change as destruction of public law. That rhetorical description does not establish total abolition of every auspicial or tribunician power.

Text relationships:

• Pro Sestio — Historical legal setting. Reported change in legislative procedure during the crisis of Cicero’s exile.
• In Vatinium testem — Chronological contrast. The later enactment must be distinguished from the law operative during Vatinius’ tribunate.

Enacted: 58 BCE. Clodian measure.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Historical legal setting.
• In Vatinium testem: Speech — 56 BCE; Chronological contrast.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

克洛狄乌斯措施涉及以观天等手段阻滞大会，不能概括为废除所有占兆或一切保民官否决权。

Existence & identification. Sestio 33 attacks the legislative changes of 58. Asconius 8 C explains a prohibition on observing the sky on days when business could be transacted with the people and relates it to the Aelian law.

Dating argument. 58 BCE belongs to Clodius’ tribunate under Piso and Gabinius. Vatinium’s conduct in 59 precedes that change; his later examination is not evidence that the Clodian measure already operated in his tribunate.

Legal & procedural operation. The practical issue is obstruction or validity of assemblies through announced celestial observation and adverse religious reports. Cicero portrays the change as demolition of constitutional safeguards.

Text & documentary survival. The record combines polemical Ciceronian characterization with Asconius’ later explanation. It does not preserve the complete statute or every exception.

Disputes & limits. “Abolition of auspices” is too broad. Rotondi’s expansive formulation about intercession should not displace the narrower practice described by Asconius; auspices, obnuntiatio and tribunician veto are distinguishable.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 397
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349

Pro P. Sestio §33 — Cicero: archived Latin

vt lex Aelia, lex Fvfia ne valeret

中文（仅译所引句段）： 使埃利乌斯法与富菲乌斯法不再有效

Greenidge (1901): pp. 344–349 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

32. Lex Aelia

埃利乌斯议事占兆法

Type: lex · Date: Second century BCE; exact date and division of provisions uncertain

Identification: Both laws named; individual provisions uncertain

Cicero treats the Aelian and Fufian laws together as restraints on legislative assemblies through religious/procedural objections.

Vatinium is asked whether he convened the plebs contrary to them during his tribunate. Sestio contrasts those restraints with Clodius’ subsequent enactment.

Limit: The texts frequently name the two laws together. Their exact individual provisions cannot be distributed confidently from these passages alone; the two records acknowledge that shared evidence.

Text relationships:

• In Vatinium testem — Contested legality. A witness’s earlier conduct is tested against the laws operative in 59 BCE; this interrogation is not a separate trial of Vatinius.
• Pro Sestio — Historical legal setting. Named in Cicero’s account of the subsequent Clodian alteration in §33.

Enactment: 2nd century BCE; uncertain. Exact date unknown.

Effect / use: Described in In Vatinium §18 (56 BCE) as operative during Vatinius’ tribunate in 59 BCE, before the Clodian change of 58. The extent of that change remains qualified.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Vatinium testem: Speech — 56 BCE; Contested legality.
• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Historical legal setting.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

埃利乌斯法常与富菲乌斯法并称，但各条款归属和确切年代并不明；“约一百年前”不是精确纪年。

Existence & identification. Vatinium 18 and 23 names the Aelian and Fufian laws; Asconius 8 C specifically associates the Aelian law with confirmation of obnuntiatio.

Dating argument. The original date and proposer are uncertain. Rotondi’s approximate 158 BCE comes from interpreting Cicero’s rounded century before the Clodian change, not an independently dated enactment record.

Legal & procedural operation. The law formed part of the procedural and religious constraints invoked against legislation. In Vatinium the question is his handling of constitutional obstacles in 59, before Clodius’ measure.

Text & documentary survival. Separate naming and occasional individual allusion support distinct laws, but do not supply a complete division of their clauses. The surviving evidence is literary.

Disputes & limits. Do not assign every rule about elections, auspices and legislative timing to this law merely because Cicero often pairs its name with Fufia. The particular allocation remains partly reconstructed.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349

In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18 — Cicero: archived Latin

cum te tribuno plebis esset etiam tum in re publica lex Aelia et Fufia

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在你担任保民官时，埃利乌斯法与富菲乌斯法在共和国中尚且有效

Greenidge (1901): pp. 344–349 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

33. Lex Fufia

富菲乌斯议事占兆法

Type: lex · Date: Second century BCE; exact date and division of provisions uncertain

Identification: Both laws named; individual provisions uncertain

Cicero treats the Aelian and Fufian laws together as restraints on legislative assemblies through religious/procedural objections.

Vatinium is asked whether he convened the plebs contrary to them during his tribunate. Sestio contrasts those restraints with Clodius’ subsequent enactment.

Limit: The texts frequently name the two laws together. Their exact individual provisions cannot be distributed confidently from these passages alone; the two records acknowledge that shared evidence.

Text relationships:

• In Vatinium testem — Contested legality. A witness’s earlier conduct is tested against the laws operative in 59 BCE; this interrogation is not a separate trial of Vatinius.
• Pro Sestio — Historical legal setting. Named in Cicero’s account of the subsequent Clodian alteration in §33.

Enactment: 2nd century BCE; uncertain. Exact date unknown.

Effect / use: Described together with the Aelian law as operative in 59 BCE before the Clodian change of 58; separate individual provisions and exact dates are not established.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Vatinium testem: Speech — 56 BCE; Contested legality.
• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Historical legal setting.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

这里的富菲乌斯法属于较早的立法程序规范，不是后来审判投票或解放奴隶方面的同名法律。

Existence & identification. Vatinium 18 attests the paired Aelian and Fufian framework; other Ciceronian references collected by Rotondi distinguish the Fufian name in legislative disputes.

Dating argument. A second-century BCE date is approximate. The proposer and exact year are not secured by the passages in this dossier; the law cannot simply inherit every inferred detail of the Aelian measure.

Legal & procedural operation. The relevant role is procedural control of legislation and the possible consequences of violating such controls. Cicero invokes these safeguards rhetorically against Vatinius’ use of tribunician power.

Text & documentary survival. No complete statute survives here. Reconstructions allocating an action or penalty specifically to Fufia depend on scattered literary references rather than a quoted complete chapter.

Disputes & limits. Do not confuse this older Fufian law with Fufius Calenus’ later jury-voting law or the Fufia Caninia on manumission. These are different instruments.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 288-289
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 344-349

In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §18 — Cicero: archived Latin

cum te tribuno plebis esset etiam tum in re publica lex Aelia et Fufia

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在你担任保民官时，埃利乌斯法与富菲乌斯法在共和国中尚且有效

Greenidge (1901): pp. 344–349 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

34. Lex Caecilia Didia

凯基利乌斯—狄狄乌斯立法程序法

Type: lex · Date: 98 BCE; consular legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Cicero invokes requirements of prior promulgation and the prohibition on joining unrelated subjects in one legislative vote.

Domo §41 uses the promulgation interval against Clodius’ rapid adoption; §53 explains why a voter should not be forced to accept an unwanted measure to obtain a wanted one.

Limit: The application of ordinary legislative notice to an adoption is Cicero’s contested analogy. A criticism under this law is not automatically a completed judicial annulment of every Clodian act.

Text relationships:

• De domo sua — Contested legality. Promulgation and the bundling of distinct subjects are tests of legislative validity.
• Pro Sestio — Conduct alleged against another. Sestio §135 names the law in the attack on Vatinius, not as the vis charge against Sestius.

Enacted: 98 BCE. Consular enactment.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• De domo sua: Speech — 57 BCE; Contested legality.
• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Conduct alleged against another.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

凯基利乌斯—狄狄乌斯法涉及预先公布和禁止混合表决；三次集市间隔的历法换算不应伪装成无争议的固定天数。

Existence & identification. Domo 41 invokes the law in an argument about publication before a vote; §53 explains the objection to bundling unlike proposals. Philippic 5.8 couples its name with the trinundinum requirement.

Dating argument. 98 BCE is the consular enactment year of Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos and T. Didius. The later cases are evidence of continuing invocation, not proof of an unchanged effective term.

Legal & procedural operation. The two principal questions are sufficient public notice and freedom to accept or reject distinct proposals separately. Cicero applies those principles to Clodius’ adoption and legislation, but that application itself requires legal argument.

Text & documentary survival. The statute is known through citations and explanations. The exact conversion of trinum nundinum into modern elapsed days is not supplied as an uncontroversial number here.

Disputes & limits. The rule against a rogatio per saturam is not a general modern single-subject doctrine with identical exceptions. The ancient political and voting mechanisms need to remain visible.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 335
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82

De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §53 — Cicero: archived Latin

ne populo necesse sit in coniunctis rebus compluribus aut id quod nolit accipere aut id quod velit repudiare

中文（仅译所引句段）： 不使人民在捆绑在一起的多个事项中，被迫接受其不愿接受的，或拒绝其愿意接受的

Greenidge (1901): pp. 79–82 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

35. Lex Licinia Iunia

李锡尼乌斯—尤尼乌斯立法程序法

Type: lex · Date: 62 BCE; consular legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

A consular law concerning safeguards around legislation is explicitly invoked in Vatinium’s prior summons before the praetor C. Memmius.

Vatinium §33 asks about an accusation under that law, the instruction to appear on the thirtieth day, and the resort to tribunician interference and force.

Limit: The quoted speech directly establishes the named accusation and summons, not the complete content of the law’s publication/deposit provisions. It is unrelated to the Licinian sodalicia law of 55.

Text relationships:

• In Vatinium testem — Earlier proceeding. A prior legal summons is used in interrogation of a witness; this speech is not itself that prosecution.
• Pro Sestio — Conduct alleged against another. Explicit reference in Sestio §135, within the attack on Vatinius.

Enacted: 62 BCE. Consular enactment.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Vatinium testem: Speech — 56 BCE; Earlier proceeding.
• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Conduct alleged against another.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

利基尼亚—尤尼亚法关系立法文书的保全与公开；国库保存的是法案还是已通过法律，研究史上仍有解释差别。

Existence & identification. Vatinium 33 expressly refers to proceedings under the Licinia Iunia; Philippic 5.8 mentions the more recent Junia Licinia alongside Caecilia Didia. The reversed order of names does not create another law.

Dating argument. 62 BCE is the consular date of D. Junius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena. The interrogation of Vatinius in 56 concerns a prior accusation, not the law’s enactment.

Legal & procedural operation. The law belongs to authentication and publication of legislation. The familiar requirement to deposit a copy at the treasury, with witnesses, rests on wider testimony and scholarly reconstruction; the Vatinium passage alone proves neither its entire wording nor all procedural penalties.

Text & documentary survival. Scattered literary testimony supports a legislative safeguard and enforcement. Rotondi records disagreement over whether the deposit concerned the proposed text or the enacted law.

Disputes & limits. Do not present the deposit-before-vote interpretation as undisputed. Separate the charge under the law from proof that the charge was sustained.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 383-384

In P. Vatinium testem interrogatio §33 — Cicero: archived Latin

postulatusne sis lege Licinia et Iunia?

中文（仅译所引句段）： 你是否曾依据李锡尼乌斯—尤尼乌斯法受到控告？

Greenidge (1901): pp. 456–504 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

36. Lex Cornelia de edictis (C. Cornelius)

科尔内利乌斯裁判官告示法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 67 BCE; tribune C. Cornelius

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Asconius reports that Cornelius required praetors to administer justice according to their standing edicts, reducing opportunities for inconsistent decisions prompted by influence.

It concerns stability of announced jurisdictional rules. In the Cornelius dossier it helps explain the political hostility surrounding his tribunate.

Limit: This is not Sulla’s lex Cornelia de maiestate, under which Cornelius was accused. Perpetuum here means a standing edict, not the later imperial redaction called the Edictum perpetuum. The enactment postdates Verres’ prosecution.

Text relationships:

• Pro Cornelio I — Historical legal setting. A reform of the defendant’s tribunate recorded by Asconius; not the charging statute.
• Pro Cornelio II — Historical legal setting. A reform of the defendant’s tribunate recorded by Asconius; not the charging statute.

Enacted: 67 BCE. Tribunician reform, later than Verres’ conduct.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Cornelio I: Speeches — 65 BCE; Historical legal setting.
• Pro Cornelio II: Speeches — 65 BCE; Historical legal setting.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

67年的科尔内利乌斯告示法约束裁判官依其常设告示司法；这里的perpetuum并非哈德良时代的《永久告示》定本。

Existence & identification. Asconius 59 C expressly reports that Cornelius carried a law requiring praetors to administer justice according to their standing edicts. Dio 36.40 supplies a parallel historical account.

Dating argument. 67 BCE is the tribunate of C. Cornelius, distinct from Sulla’s legislation of 81. Verres’ earlier praetorships cannot be judged as violations of a statute that had not yet been enacted.

Legal & procedural operation. The law constrains variation in the magistrate’s announced administration of justice and aims at favouritism. It does not abolish praetorian interpretation or transform every edict into a popular statute.

Text & documentary survival. Asconius provides an ancient paraphrase incorporating a compact statement of the rule. The complete enactment is lost; the expression edicta perpetua here refers to standing edicts.

Disputes & limits. Do not identify this with the imperial codification conventionally associated with Hadrian and Julian. Rotondi already notes that the constraint should not be construed absolutely.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 82-99

Asconius, pp. 59 Clark (1907) — Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907

ut praetores ex edictis suis perpetuis ius dicerent

中文（仅译所引句段）： 规定裁判官应依照自己事先公布、在任期内持续适用的告示行使司法权。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 82–99 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

37. Lex Cornelia de maiestate (Sulla)

苏拉的科尔内利乌斯损害国家尊严法

Type: lex · Date: 81 BCE; Sullan legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Asconius expressly identifies the Cornelian maiestas statute as the basis of the prosecution of the tribune Cornelius. His reading of a proposal despite intercession is alleged to diminish tribunician authority.

The defence distinguishes the admitted conduct from whether it constitutes the statutory wrong. The commentary records an initial proceeding in 66 and a renewed prosecution in 65.

Limit: The continuous speeches are lost; the case is reconstructed through commentary and quotations. Do not transform Asconius’ explanatory narrative into verbatim Cicero, or confuse defendant Cornelius with legislator Sulla.

Text relationships:

• Pro Cornelio I — Governing charge. The charging law is named in Asconius’ account, not inferred from the defendant’s family name.
• Pro Cornelio II — Governing charge. The charging law is named in Asconius’ account, not inferred from the defendant’s family name.

Enacted: 81 BCE. Sullan enactment, distinct from Cornelius’ reform of 67.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Cornelio I: Speeches — 65 BCE; Governing charge.
• Pro Cornelio II: Speeches — 65 BCE; Governing charge.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

须区分苏拉的叛国规范、科尔内利乌斯自己的立法，以及66和65年的控诉；宣读法案、否决与通过表决不是同一程序阶段。

Existence & identification. Asconius 59–61 C expressly identifies the Cornelian maiestas prosecution of Cornelius, including the Cominii accusers and the interruption of the first proceeding.

Dating argument. 81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. The accusation in 66 and renewed trial in 65 are later applications; they must not be confused with the defendant’s own legislation in 67.

Legal & procedural operation. The accusation turns on Cornelius reading his proposal despite intercession. The defence contests whether the act violated tribunician power and public authority. Legislative reading, a colleague’s veto and completion of a vote are separate stages.

Text & documentary survival. The complete statute is not extant here. Asconius’ account and surviving quotations of the defence provide evidence for application, not every act originally covered by maiestas.

Disputes & limits. The imperial law of treason and offences against an emperor cannot be retrojected into this Republican dispute. A surviving account of an accusation does not itself prove the charged constitutional violation.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 360
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 423-424

Asconius, pp. 59–61 Clark (1907) — Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907

reum Cornelium duo fratres Cominii lege Cornelia de maiestate fecerunt.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 科米尼乌斯兄弟二人依据科尔内利乌斯损害国家尊严法控告了科尔内利乌斯。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 423–424 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

38. Cornelius’ revised law on exemption from laws

科尔内利乌斯关于豁免法律的修订法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 67 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Asconius distinguishes an initial contested proposal from a revised measure requiring two hundred senators for an exemption and preventing obstruction when the matter went to the people.

The controversial legislative sequence forms the setting for the accusation that Cornelius bypassed a tribunician veto by reading the proposal himself.

Limit: An initial proposal, the conduct during its presentation, and the later enacted revision are separate legal objects. The register records the revised enactment; it does not mark every abandoned proposal as law.

Text relationships:

• Pro Cornelio I — Historical legal setting. The earlier contested proposal and its revised enactment explain the charge’s setting.
• Pro Cornelio II — Historical legal setting. The earlier contested proposal and its revised enactment explain the charge’s setting.

Revised law enacted: 67 BCE. Revision distinguished from the initial proposal.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Cornelio I: Speeches — 65 BCE; Historical legal setting.
• Pro Cornelio II: Speeches — 65 BCE; Historical legal setting.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

原案与修正后通过的版本必须分开；二百名元老的出席要求和随后人民程序是理解最终措施的关键。

Existence & identification. Asconius 58–59 C distinguishes Cornelius’ original proposal from the revised measure adopted: two hundred senators had to be present for a senatorial exemption, followed by reference to the people without obstructive intercession.

Dating argument. 67 BCE is the relevant tribunician year. The initial proposal and the revised enactment are successive versions, not evidence for two identically worded operative laws.

Legal & procedural operation. The measure regulates who can release a person from a law and how Senate and people participate. It concerns legal exemption, rather than general repeal or the cancellation of every law by the Senate.

Text & documentary survival. The revised terms survive in Asconius’ historical explanation. His narrative of opposition and compromise is essential to determining which version was actually carried.

Disputes & limits. Displaying only the initial demand for exclusive popular authority would misstate the resulting arrangement. Keep the quorum and later popular step attached to the revised version.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 370-371
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82

Asconius, pp. 58–59 Clark (1907) — Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907

ne quis in senatu legibus solveretur nisi CC adfuissent

中文（仅译所引句段）： 除非有二百名元老出席，否则元老院不得豁免任何人遵守法律

Greenidge (1901): pp. 79–82 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

39. Lex Domitia de sacerdotiis

多米提乌斯祭司选任法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 104 BCE

Identification: Cicero fragment through Asconius; conventional identification

The reform shifted an important part of selecting priests from cooptation by the colleges to a popular electoral mechanism.

In the fragment of the second Cornelian speech, Cicero invokes Catulus’ uncle Domitius to show that respectable precedents exist for a tribune confronting elite religious corporations.

Limit: This is an argumentative precedent, not the charge against Cornelius. The fragment’s broad description should not be mistaken for a full procedural statement about all tribes or all priestly offices.

Text relationships:

• Pro Cornelio II — Explicit comparison. Preserved fragment FCO3: popular participation in priestly selection as a tribunician precedent.

Enacted: 104 BCE. Conventional enactment year.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Cornelio II: Speeches — 65 BCE; Explicit comparison.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

多米提乌斯祭司选任法涉及部分部落与祭司团的不同作用；104与103的纪年差异及其解释应保留。

Existence & identification. Asconius 79–80 C preserves Cicero’s use of Domitius’ priestly legislation as a precedent. Agrarian Law 2.18 explains the smaller part of the people participating in priestly selection.

Dating argument. The atlas retains the usual 104 BCE date but now records Rotondi’s 103 dating and attempted reconciliation through a tribunician year beginning in December 104. This is a dating disagreement, not a securely documented enactment interval.

Legal & procedural operation. The measure gives a selected minority of tribes a part in choosing priests, alongside the colleges’ remaining role. Cicero invokes the precedent in Cornelius’ constitutional defence, not as the criminal charge.

Text & documentary survival. The law is known through literary testimony and its later repeal or restoration history. Neither a complete voting regulation nor all nomination requirements is preserved in the quoted fragment.

Disputes & limits. Do not say that the entire people directly replaced every form of priestly co-option. The smaller voting body and continued collegial acts matter to the juridical reconstruction.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 329
• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 373-380

Long Latin–Chinese evidence FCO3

Cicero, Pro Cornelio II, quoted in Asconius pp. 79–80 Clark

Greenidge (1901): pp. 373–380 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

40. Lex Gabinia on Pompey’s maritime command

加比尼乌斯授予庞培海上统帅权法

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 67 BCE

Identification: Cicero fragment through Asconius; historical identification

The Gabinian proposal for Pompey’s command against piracy supplies a precedent involving obstruction and the political management of a fellow tribune’s opposition.

The first Cornelian speech compares actions around the earlier tribunician contest to the accusation against Cornelius.

Limit: An analogy concerning intercession is not proof that the two incidents were procedurally identical. This is not the Gabinian ballot law or another unrelated Gabinian enactment.

Text relationships:

• Pro Cornelio I — Explicit comparison. Preserved fragment FCO1 and Asconius’ explanation of the tribunician precedent.

Enacted: 67 BCE. Command against piracy.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Cornelio I: Speeches — 65 BCE; Explicit comparison.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

在科尔内利乌斯辩护中，加比尼乌斯法首先是处理否决权的先例；反海盗统帅权与次年的曼尼利乌斯授权不同。

Existence & identification. Asconius 71–72 C preserves the Gabinian proposal and the response to Trebellius’ veto in the Cornelius commentary. Cicero’s Manilian speech and Plutarch, Pompey 25–26, give other accounts of the extraordinary command.

Dating argument. 67 BCE is the tribunate of A. Gabinius and the anti-piracy command. The following year’s Manilian enlargement of Pompey’s responsibilities is a separate enactment.

Legal & procedural operation. In the Cornelius defence, the important relation is procedural precedent: an obstruction was met with a proposal to remove the obstructing tribune. Powers, geographical extent and resources of the command require their own witnesses.

Text & documentary survival. The dossier contains literary descriptions and a fragment of Cicero transmitted by Asconius, not the original statute. The threat of removal should not be turned into a completed deposition.

Disputes & limits. Different accounts give details of ships, troops and legates. Do not silently harmonize all figures into one verbatim grant, or confuse this law with an earlier Gabinian ballot law.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 371-372
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 79-82

Long Latin–Chinese evidence FCO1

Cicero, Pro Cornelio I, quoted in Asconius pp. 71–72 Clark

Greenidge (1901): pp. 79–82 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

41. Twelve Tables: killing a thief; prohibition of privilegia

十二表法：杀死盗贼与禁止针对个人立法

Type: lex · Date: Traditional dating 451–450 BCE

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Milone invokes the permitted killing of a night thief, or an armed resisting day thief, to show that an admitted killing need not be unlawful. Domo invokes the prohibition on legislation directed at private individuals.

These are distinct rules used for distinct arguments: substantive justification in one speech and a limit on targeted legislation in the other.

Limit: The wording is mediated by Cicero’s much later advocacy. The register does not present these sentences as surviving fifth-century tablets or as the complete text of the Twelve Tables.

Text relationships:

• Pro Milone — Explicit comparison. A statutory example supports the general distinction between killing and unlawful killing.
• De domo sua — Protective norm invoked. Cicero attacks legislation aimed by name at an uncondemned citizen.

Traditional dating: 451–450 BCE. Traditional date, not dating of Cicero’s transmitted witness.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Milone: Trial / delivery — 52 BCE; Explicit comparison.
• De domo sua: Speech — 57 BCE; Protective norm invoked.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

十二表法的传统创设年、晚共和引用与后世传抄是不同时间层；重建条次及措辞不能视作原表实物。

Existence & identification. Milone 9 explicitly invokes the Twelve Tables on killing a nocturnal thief and a daytime thief who defends himself with a weapon. Domo 43 invokes restrictions on privilegia and capital decisions.

Dating argument. 451–450 BCE is the traditional date of the decemviral legislation. Cicero’s first-century BCE witness and the much later manuscripts transmitting him are distinct dates in the chain of survival.

Legal & procedural operation. In Milo’s defence the rule is an analogy for lawful killing; it does not prove the facts of self-defence on the Appian Way. In Domo the Tables authorize a constitutional objection to legislation against an individual.

Text & documentary survival. No original Twelve Tables survive. Crawford, law 40, separates sources, reconstruction and commentary; even the ordering and numbering of reconstructed clauses can differ from Bruns and other editions.

Disputes & limits. A later witness may paraphrase rather than quote. Compare Gaius in Digest 9.2.4.1 and Gellius 11.18.6 for the theft rule; their additional conditions must not be silently inserted into Cicero’s words.

Critical reading:

• M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 609-610
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 15-78
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366

Pro T. Annio Milone §9 — Cicero: archived Latin

quod si xii tabulae nocturnum furem quoquo modo, diurnum autem, si se telo defenderet, interfici impune voluerunt

中文（仅译所引句段）： 如果十二表法允许不论何种情形杀死夜间盗贼而不受罚，并允许在白昼盗贼持械自卫时杀死他

De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices §43 — Cicero: archived Latin

vetant xii tabulae leges privatis hominibus inrogari

中文（仅译所引句段）： 十二表法禁止针对个别私人制定法律

Greenidge (1901): pp. 15–78, 359–366 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

42. Sulla’s law affecting civic status

苏拉剥夺公民身份的法律

Type: lex · Date: Sullan settlement; exact enactment date/title not secured

Identification: Author and saving clause explicit; exact title not secured

Caecina’s adversary invokes a Sullan law against his civic standing. Cicero answers with the law’s saving clause excluding provisions that could not lawfully be proposed.

He links the availability of civil rights and remedies to the argument that citizenship, like liberty, cannot simply be removed by an arbitrary popular command.

Limit: The speech names Sulla but does not provide a full formal title. The argument is contested constitutional reasoning, not a neutral rule that all Roman citizenship deprivations were historically impossible.

Text relationships:

• Pro Caecina — Contested legality. The later part of the defence addresses the Sullan civic-status objection, beyond the possessory interdict alone.

Origin: Sullan settlement; undated. Exact title and enactment date not secured.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Caecina: Speech — usually 69 BCE?; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

《为凯基纳辩护》提出替代性论证：既质疑剥夺公民权的效力，又讨论即使承认对方前提仍保留的财产能力。

Existence & identification. Caecina 95–100 debates a Sullan measure affecting citizenship and the retention of rights involving property and inheritance. The statutory saving clause and Cicero’s constitutional objection are separate arguments.

Dating argument. The Sullan settlement supplies the historical setting, conventionally around 81 BCE. Rotondi assigns a citizenship-deprivation law concerning Volaterrae to 81; the current evidence does not recover an official title or exact promulgation event.

Legal & procedural operation. The defence argues both that citizenship cannot simply be taken away and that the relevant private-law capacity remains protected even on the opponent’s premise. These are alternative routes to standing or entitlement, not a single straightforward concession.

Text & documentary survival. A forensic report of a law and its interpretation survives; no original municipal status decree is reproduced. The modern descriptive title must remain visibly supplied.

Disputes & limits. Do not treat Cicero’s general proposition as an uncontested description of every historical deprivation of citizenship. The Sullan punitive settlement and legal capacity of particular communities need separate proof.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 352-353
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 566-568

Pro A. Caecina §95 — Cicero: archived Latin

si qvid ivs non esset rogarier, eivs ea lege nihilvm rogatvm.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 如果有任何事项依法不得提请表决，则本法对该事项视为未作提案。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 566–568 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

43. Flaccus’ provincial edict prohibiting gold export

弗拉库斯禁止从亚细亚输出黄金的告示

Type: edict · Date: 62–61 BCE governorship; edict’s exact date not supplied

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Flacco §67 explicitly reports an edict forbidding gold export from Asia. It is invoked to defend the interception of funds destined for Jerusalem.

The legal question separates the alleged public restriction on export, accounting for seized funds, and the accusation of private appropriation. Cicero invokes earlier senatorial policy in support.

Limit: A governor’s edict does not by itself prove lawful handling of every seized sum. Cicero’s anti-Jewish rhetoric is evidence of his strategy and prejudice, not an endorsed description of Jewish communities.

Text relationships:

• Pro Flacco — Contested legality. A directly attested edict bears on a particular contested act within the extortion defence.

Edict issued: during 62–61 BCE. Governorship interval; exact edict date not supplied.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Flacco: Speech — 59 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

弗拉库斯禁运黄金的告示、元老院先例与扣押款项的实际去向须分别证明；辩词中的敌意不能当作关于犹太人的事实判断。

Existence & identification. Flacco 67 expressly reports Flaccus’ edict forbidding export of gold from Asia and appeals to earlier senatorial policy. The surrounding passages concern money collected for Jerusalem and its handling.

Dating argument. The edict belongs to Flaccus’ Asian administration, conventionally 62–61 BCE; the defence of 59 is later testimony. A precise issue day and complete duration are not established.

Legal & procedural operation. The legal question includes the governor’s competence to prohibit export and whether the seized money was properly accounted for. Justifying an export restriction does not prove that every seizure or subsequent disposition was lawful.

Text & documentary survival. The edict and senatorial precedents are reported by the advocate; no independent posted edict or full accounts survive in this dossier.

Disputes & limits. Cicero’s hostile characterization of Jewish participants is rhetoric, not evidence that they lacked rights or that their accusations were false. Keep the claimed public policy distinct from alleged private appropriation.

Critical reading:

• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 109-132

Pro L. Flacco §67 — Cicero: archived Latin

Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 弗拉库斯以告示规定，不得将黄金从亚细亚输出。

Greenidge (1901): pp. 109–132 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

44. Lex Valeria on debt adjustment

瓦莱里乌斯债务调整法

Type: lex · Date: 86 BCE

Identification: Law named in fragmentary text; context identifies debt regime

The opening fragments of Fonteio discuss payments and accounts following the Valerian law. Cicero argues that Fonteius used the same method as other officials, including the prosecutor’s favored comparator Hirtuleius.

The issue is accounting for public receipts and disbursements under a changed debt regime; the names of the fractional account books matter to the reconstruction.

Limit: The speech is fragmentary and does not preserve the full statute. This is the debt law, not the Sullan proscription law whose possible Valerian identity Roscius Amerinus leaves uncertain.

Text relationships:

• Pro Fonteio — Underlying transaction. The law directly bears on the disputed accounting in the opening fragments, separate from the extortion charging statute.

Enacted: 86 BCE. Debt adjustment enactment.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Fonteio: Speech — usually 69 BCE; Underlying transaction.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

86年的瓦莱里亚债务调整与授权苏拉的同姓法律不同；残篇、后世史家概述与推测中的废止必须分开。

Existence & identification. Fonteio’s opening fragments refer to the accounting effects of the debt adjustment. Velleius 2.23.2 explicitly says that Valerius Flaccus ordered creditors to receive a quarter.

Dating argument. 86 BCE is the suffect consulship associated with the law. The later Fonteius prosecution discusses earlier public accounting; it does not date the measure to the trial.

Legal & procedural operation. The adjustment remits three quarters of the relevant debt burden in the historical account. The forensic issue is whether Fonteius’ treasury or accounting conduct can be impugned from records produced under this exceptional adjustment.

Text & documentary survival. The speech survives imperfectly at its beginning. A later historian supplies an explicit summary of the fraction; do not fill the missing forensic text with an invented statute.

Disputes & limits. Rotondi notes that cessation of operation does not itself prove formal repeal by another Cornelian law. This Valerian debt measure is distinct from the Valerian authorization of Sulla.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 347-348
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 415-428

Pro M. Fonteio §1 — Cicero: archived Latin

post legem Valeriam latam

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在瓦莱里乌斯法颁布之后

Pro M. Fonteio §2 — Cicero: archived Latin

in tabulis dodrantariis et quadrantariis

中文（仅译所引句段）： 在记录四分之三与四分之一数额的账簿中

Greenidge (1901): pp. 415–428 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

45. Lex Cornelia testamentaria / nummaria (de falsis)

科尔内利乌斯遗嘱与货币伪造法

Type: lex · Date: 81 BCE; Sullan legislation

Identification: Explicit text; conventional identification

Verres’ prosecution cites the Cornelian testamentary and monetary penal law as an example of fixing a starting date for an inquiry even into conduct already intrinsically wrongful.

The example supports the argument against retrospective interference with Asellus’ lawful testament. It is an analogy about statutory time, not a falsum charge in this trial.

Limit: Ancient descriptions vary; the register groups the testamentary/monetary reference under the conventional de falsis identification, without implying that a complete text survives.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career — Explicit comparison. An expressly named example in the argument on prospectivity.

Enacted: 81 BCE. Conventional Sullan dating.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem II.1: Verres’ earlier career: Published text — 70 BCE; Explicit comparison.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

《科尔内利乌斯伪造法》在此是说明法律不溯及既往的比较；帝政法学扩充的伪造罪范围不能全部回填至81年。

Existence & identification. Verrines II.1.108 cites the testamentary and monetary Cornelian law as an example of a statute operating prospectively. Later Digest 48.10 preserves a developed law of falsum.

Dating argument. 81 BCE is the conventional Sullan enactment date. Verres’ urban edict in 74 and the published accusation in 70 are later contexts of comparison.

Legal & procedural operation. Cicero’s immediate point is temporal application, illustrated by forgery-related legislation. The statute is not the charge under which Verres is prosecuted, and the passage does not establish that Asellus forged a will.

Text & documentary survival. Later juristic collections assemble many extensions beyond wills and coins. Crawford expressly declined to reconstruct this law as a text in Roman Statutes, contrasting its evidential position with the already conjectural Aquilian reconstruction.

Disputes & limits. Do not back-project imperial extensions or penalties into the law of 81. Its traditional multiple descriptive names do not supply a surviving official title page.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 356-357
• M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, vol. II (1996), pp. 723
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424

In C. Verrem §2.1.108 — Cicero: archived Latin

Cornelia testamentaria, nummaria

中文（仅译所引句段）： 关于遗嘱与货币的科尔内利乌斯法

Greenidge (1901): p. 424 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

46. Lex Aurelia iudiciaria

奥雷利乌斯审判员法

Type: lex · Date: 70 BCE; praetor L. Aurelius Cotta

Identification: Reform attested by Asconius; text-specific chronological roles distinguished

The Aurelian reform shares jury service among senators, equites and tribuni aerarii. Its relevance is the constitution of the deciding body, not the definition of an offence.

The Verrine prosecution puts senatorial judging under pressure while reform is being proposed; the Cornelius trial shows the later three-order composition in operation. Cluentio §130 recalls the sharing of courts with the equestrian order.

Limit: Do not label the senatorial jury trying Verres as already constituted under the new three-order settlement. Later Pompeian changes to selection also prevent treating the 70 BCE law as the complete jury code for every later case.

Text relationships:

• In Verrem, Actio prima — Contemporary reform debate. The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.
• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration — Contemporary reform debate. The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.
• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation — Contemporary reform debate. The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments — Contemporary reform debate. The prosecution’s pressure on the existing senatorial courts coincides with the proposed reform; see Verrines II.2.174, II.3.223 and II.5.177, not an already reconstituted Verres jury.
• Pro Cluentio — Institutional framework. A three-order jury regime, rather than a substantive charge; Cluentio §130 and Asconius pp. 61–62 anchor the connection.
• Pro Cornelio I — Institutional framework. A three-order jury regime, rather than a substantive charge; Cluentio §130 and Asconius pp. 61–62 anchor the connection.
• Pro Cornelio II — Institutional framework. A three-order jury regime, rather than a substantive charge; Cluentio §130 and Asconius pp. 61–62 anchor the connection.

Enacted: 70 BCE. Distinguish reform debate from the existing Verres jury.

Effect / use: A reform in 70 BCE, not the constitution of the jury already trying Verres; a later operative jury framework, with further selection changes in 55 BCE.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• In Verrem, Actio prima: Speech — 70 BCE; Contemporary reform debate.
• In Verrem II.2: Sicilian jurisdiction and administration: Published text — 70 BCE; Contemporary reform debate.
• In Verrem II.3: Grain and taxation: Published text — 70 BCE; Contemporary reform debate.
• In Verrem II.5: Military claims and cruel punishments: Published text — 70 BCE; Contemporary reform debate.
• Pro Cluentio: Speech — 66 BCE; Institutional framework.
• Pro Cornelio I: Speeches — 65 BCE; Institutional framework.
• Pro Cornelio II: Speeches — 65 BCE; Institutional framework.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

奥雷利乌斯法确立三类审判员的框架；审理韦雷斯的既有审判团与当时改革提案不可混同，财产资格仍有解释问题。

Existence & identification. Asconius 17 C explicitly credits the praetor L. Aurelius Cotta with distributing jury service among senators, equites and tribuni aerarii. Verrines II.2.174 describes the contemporary proposal for new jurors.

Dating argument. 70 BCE is fixed by Cotta’s praetorship and the prosecution of Verres. The existing Verres jury must not be redrawn as already constituted under the three-order arrangement merely because reform was being debated.

Legal & procedural operation. The reform ends exclusive senatorial control of the relevant public juries and establishes participation from three groups. Their social and census qualifications need to be distinguished from actual panel selection in a particular trial.

Text & documentary survival. Asconius is more specific than abbreviated accounts in Livy’s epitome or Velleius that describe a transfer to equites or a division between two orders. Preserve that difference rather than counting the summaries as identical wording.

Disputes & limits. Lewis discusses the uncertain identity of tribuni aerarii and their property qualification. The law’s existence and broad redistribution are firmer than every modern reconstruction of its social categories.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 369
• R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456

Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907) — Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907

qua communicata sunt iudicia senatui et equitibus Romanis et tribunis aerariis.

中文（仅译所引句段）： 依该法，审判职能由元老、罗马骑士和财务保民官共同承担。

Ancient testimonia: Asconius, Verrines, Cluentio

Greenidge (1901): pp. 433–456 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

47. Lex Pompeia iudiciaria

庞培审判员选任法

Type: lex · Date: 55 BCE; Pompey’s second consulship

Identification: Institutional reconstruction from Asconius and Greenidge

Asconius describes a change in jury selection from centuries and the highest census class, while preserving representation of the same three orders.

This is institutional background to later jury trials. It must be read alongside special selection rules, notably the Licinian tribal mechanism discussed in Plancio and the special Pompeian inquiry of 52.

Limit: The cited testimony describes the proposal in Pompey’s second consulship. It does not preserve a complete list of each subsequent trial’s jurors, nor license replacing special procedures with a generic diagram.

Text relationships:

• Pro Plancio — Institutional framework. General post-55 selection background; the particular offence and any special selection rule must be established separately.
• Pro Scauro — Institutional framework. General post-55 selection background; the particular offence and any special selection rule must be established separately.
• Pro Rabirio Postumo — Institutional framework. General post-55 selection background; the particular offence and any special selection rule must be established separately.

Promulgation attested: 55 BCE. Asconius describes promulgation in the second consulship.

Effect / use: Relevant to the reconstructed post-55 jury-selection framework. Promulgation is attested; a distinct enactment day or complete effective term is not supplied.

Promulgation: Separately dated promulgation is attested in 55 BCE; no distinct enactment day is supplied.

• Pro Plancio: Speech — 54 BCE; Institutional framework.
• Pro Scauro: Speech — 54 BCE; Institutional framework.
• Pro Rabirio Postumo: Speech — 54 BCE; Institutional framework.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

55年的庞培审判员法保留三阶层结构；阿斯科尼乌斯不能证明庞培提高了财产门槛，更不能据此虚构一个新数额。

Existence & identification. Asconius 17 C expressly says Pompey promulgated the measure in his second consulship and retained selection from the three orders. Pisonem 94 is the contemporary passage being explained; Philippic 1.20 later names the Pompeian law.

Dating argument. 55 BCE is independently anchored by the second consulship and Asconius’ dating of In Pisonem. The verb promulgavit attests public proposal; Cicero’s lege iudiciaria lata and later reference provide the wider enactment context. No exact voting day is established.

Legal & procedural operation. The rule concerns selection from the highest assessed property category and centuries in a manner different from before. It retains the three-order framework rather than creating a new exclusive senatorial or equestrian jury.

Text & documentary survival. The original statute is not extant. Rotondi records an unproved attempt to identify Florentine jury fragments with it; those fragments must not be presented as a secure physical copy of this law.

Disputes & limits. Lewis, pp. 213–214, explicitly rejects treating Asconius as proof that Pompey raised the census threshold. Enforcement of existing qualification and limits on discretionary selection are alternatives. “Highest census” does not supply a new numerical threshold.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 405
• R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 35
• R. G. Lewis, Asconius: Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero (2006), pp. 213-214
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 433-456

Asconius, In Pisonem, p. 17 Clark (1907) — Asconius: Latin commentary, Clark 1907

aeque tamen ex illis tribus ordinibus

中文（仅译所引句段）： 但仍然平等地从那三个等级中选取

Greenidge (1901): pp. 433–456 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

48. Lex Clodia concerning citizens executed without judgment

克洛狄乌斯关于未经审判处死公民的决议

Type: plebiscitum · Date: 58 BCE

Identification: Later historical testimony; distinguish general and named measures

Cassius Dio reports a general measure directed against anyone who had put, or should put, Roman citizens to death without popular condemnation. It was aimed politically at Cicero without naming him in that first formulation.

This belongs to the legal background of Cicero’s exile and the restoration narratives in Domo and Sestio. It is distinct from the subsequent measure naming Cicero and his interdiction.

Limit: The general measure’s content here is sourced to Dio 38.14.4, a later historical account, not to a surviving verbatim Clodian statute. Cicero’s own retrospective defence is partisan evidence.

Text relationships:

• De domo sua — Historical legal setting. General measure behind the exile crisis; not the current defendant’s charging law in Sestio, and not identical to the named interdiction discussed in Domo §47.
• Pro Sestio — Historical legal setting. General measure behind the exile crisis; not the current defendant’s charging law in Sestio, and not identical to the named interdiction discussed in Domo §47.

Measure proposed: 58 BCE. Dio reports the general proposal; distinguish the named measure.

Effect / use: The dated contexts below show application, invocation or comparison according to their individual roles. They do not establish an uninterrupted period in force or a date of repeal.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• De domo sua: Speech — 57 BCE; Historical legal setting.
• Pro Sestio: Speech — 56 BCE; Historical legal setting.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

58年的一般性克洛狄乌斯措施与随后针对西塞罗个人的措施须分开；一般条文并不自行解决63年紧急授权的合法性。

Existence & identification. Dio 38.14.4 describes Clodius’ general measure against putting a citizen to death without trial. Velleius 2.45.1 likewise reports the rule’s general form and its practical direction against Cicero.

Dating argument. 58 BCE is the tribunician setting. Dio’s account of proposal and the later named measure should be kept in sequence; an exact promulgation or voting day is not secured here.

Legal & procedural operation. The legal trigger is alleged killing of a citizen without trial, with interdiction as the reported sanction. The political target is Cicero’s handling of the Catilinarians in 63, but the initial form did not simply name him.

Text & documentary survival. The rule is mediated by later historical accounts and retrospective Ciceronian defence. No original plebiscite is reproduced. It is separate from both Gracchus’ earlier safeguard and the later named Clodian exile measure.

Disputes & limits. The general wording does not itself decide the controversy about the Senate’s emergency authorization in 63. That is the contested legal and political background.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 394-395
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 359-366

Cassius Dio 38.14.4: general measure directed at executions without judgment

Greenidge (1901): pp. 359–366 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

49. Dolabella’s decree requiring a sponsio

多拉贝拉命令订立诉讼赌约的裁判命令

Type: decree · Date: Before the hearing of Pro Quinctio (81 BCE)

Identification: Individual order reported explicitly in Cicero

Quinctio §30 reports Dolabella’s decision to require Quinctius to enter a sponsio with Naevius on whether his goods had been possessed for thirty days under Burrienus’ edict.

The decree determines the immediate procedural form. Cicero contrasts it with a hearing on the underlying matter and describes the objection that security should be required of both parties or neither.

Limit: This is an individual magistrate’s decision reported by the advocate. Its wording is mediated by the speech; it is not a general edict, a popular enactment, or a surviving independent decree document.

Text relationships:

• Pro Quinctio — Governing remedy. The decree orders the sponsio; the separately registered Burrienan edict supplies the conditions that sponsio tests.

Order issued: before the hearing of 81 BCE. Case-specific procedural order.

Effect / use: An order for this particular dispute, issued before the hearing of 81 BCE; not a general law with a reconstructed continuous period in force.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Quinctio: Speech — 81 BCE; Governing remedy.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

多拉贝拉的命令是本案程序决定，并非另一部告示；“新奇”是辩方评价，不能自动等同于无效。

Existence & identification. Quinctio 30 reports Dolabella’s order requiring Quinctius to make a sponsio with Naevius on whether the property had been possessed for thirty days under Burrienus’ edict.

Dating argument. The order precedes the hearing of 81 BCE. It belongs to the sequence of this dispute, not the initial creation of the edict or a general act of legislation.

Legal & procedural operation. The order makes the lawfulness of the edictal possession a preliminary issue with consequences for security and reputation. Quinctius’ advisers object to exposing his standing through this formulation and ask for a more symmetrical arrangement.

Text & documentary survival. Only Cicero’s report of the decree and reaction is available. This is an individual procedural decision, not a second general praetorian edict.

Disputes & limits. Cicero calls it novel and criticizes it, but that characterization does not independently establish nullity. Keep the order’s existence, the advocate’s objection and Greenidge’s reconstruction distinct.

Critical reading:

• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 531-541

Pro P. Quinctio §30 — Cicero: archived Latin

sed iubet P. Quinctium sponsionem cum Sex. Naevio facere:

中文（仅译所引句段）： 但他命令普布利乌斯·昆克提乌斯与塞克斯图斯·奈维乌斯订立诉讼赌约：

Greenidge (1901): pp. 531–541 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

50. Senatus consultum interpreting the lex Calpurnia

元老院解释卡尔普尔尼乌斯选举舞弊法的决议

Type: senatusconsultum · Date: 63 BCE; reported as made on Cicero’s motion

Identification: Senatorial resolution reported explicitly in Cicero

Murena §67 reports a senatorial resolution treating paid attendance on candidates, hired followings, and specified public distributions of places at gladiatorial shows and meals as contrary to the lex Calpurnia.

Cicero separates the legal classification from proof: if such acts happened they violate the law, but whether they happened remains disputed. The resolution therefore does not establish Murena’s guilt.

Limit: The resolution interprets the statute; it is not the lex Calpurnia itself or the lex Tullia. The surviving witness here is Cicero’s report, not the independent official record of the senate.

Text relationships:

• Pro Murena — Contested legality. The reported resolution states the legal characterization of acts; Cicero insists that occurrence must still be proved.

Resolution adopted: 63 BCE. Reported as made on Cicero’s motion.

Effect / use: Reported in Pro Murena (63 BCE) as interpreting the Calpurnian law. The resolution’s legal characterization does not prove that the defendant committed the acts.

Promulgation: No separately dated promulgation event is established here; the origin date above must not be treated as a documented day of first publication.

• Pro Murena: Speech — 63 BCE; Contested legality.

Research dossier: Ancient evidence and critical documentation

元老院决议把若干行为定性为违法，但附有“若确有其事”的条件；规范判断与穆雷纳实际行为的证明不能混为一谈。

Existence & identification. Murena 67 reports the Senate’s resolution on Cicero’s motion and lists paid attendance, paid following, tribe-wide seating and indiscriminate meals as conduct contrary to the Calpurnian law if done.

Dating argument. 63 BCE is the year of Cicero’s consulship and the Murena defence. The underlying Calpurnian statute dates to 67; the interpretive resolution is a later instrument.

Legal & procedural operation. The conditional “if these things were done” separates legal characterization from factual proof. Cicero can endorse the Senate’s rule while arguing that Murena’s activities do not meet it.

Text & documentary survival. A senatorial decision is embedded in a forensic account rather than preserved as an independently inscribed senatus consultum. The speech is nevertheless explicit about its nature and Cicero’s role.

Disputes & limits. Do not label the resolution a new popular lex or read the enumeration as a factual finding of guilt against Murena. The distinction is the defence’s central procedural move.

Critical reading:

• Giovanni Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (1912), pp. 374
• A. H. J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (1901), pp. 424-425

Pro L. Murena §67 — Cicero: archived Latin

dixisti senatus consultum me referente esse factum

中文（仅译所引句段）： 你说过，元老院曾依我的提议作出一项决议

Pro L. Murena §67 — Cicero: archived Latin

contra legem facta haec videri, si facta sint

中文（仅译所引句段）： 这些行为如果确曾发生，就应视为违反法律

Greenidge (1901): pp. 424–425 (printed pages). This is an older reconstruction; uncertainties are retained. Annotated volume.

Method and limitations

Dates distinguish speech delivery, published textual units, enactment, promulgation, issue of an order, and attested use. A terminus, disputed year or date of citation is not a precise origin date. Connected speech dates do not define a law’s continuous period in force.

Dates identify enactments, not dates of every speech that mentions them. Uncertain dates and conventional identifications remain labeled. General dates and names are historical identifications, not necessarily explicit in the excerpt.

Chinese text translates the displayed focus quotation only. Expanded Latin gives the complete supporting numbered section and retains the archived edition’s gaps and editorial signs; it is not presented as a new complete Chinese translation. The original 65 bilingual dossier units remain available unchanged.

All 33 atlas units receive instrument links or an explicit evidence-limit note. Coverage means reviewed inclusion in this register, not exhaustion of every law mentioned in the full text.

Cicero sections are extracted unchanged from the locally archived canonical Perseus Latin XML. Asconius excerpts are transcribed from the linked Clark 1907 text; they are commentary, not continuous Cicero. Greenidge references use printed page numbers.

Latin-derived translations and annotations retain the dossier’s attribution and CC BY-SA 4.0 terms. Translations are working translations without independent second-translator review. This historical register is not a modern statement of legal rules.

Machine-readable register · Validation audit